Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File R. 14,052, Thomas Ewell, Va.

SERVICE
NUMBER
Va.
Ewell, Thomas
R. 14,052
Va. Half Pay
CONTENTS
See papers in claim Thomas Kinder Ewell, Va., R. ✓
N.A. Acc. No. 874 See 050064 Half Pay Thomas Ewell
5

Cert. of Kinship of The small — 1820; 1821 — Hasting's Court

(Copy)
At a Quarterly Session Court held for Prince Anne County, the 3rd day of March 1835.
The Court certify that satisfactory evidence has been adduced to prove that James Ewell, Thomas Ewell, and John Ewell, were the sons and heirs at law and devisees of Thomas Ewell, deceased, (late of Prince Anne County who served as a Captain in the Virginia State line or continental establishment during the war of the revolution) that they are all now dead, leaving the following persons to wit: Mary Mills, Thomas Mills, Susan Mills, William Ewell and Sarah Greenwood their sole and only heirs at law, and who are the sole and only heirs at law of the aforesaid Thomas Ewell deceased.
A Copy - Teste
Signed J. J. Burroughs. C.C
State of Virginia: Prince Anne County, to wit.
I John J. Burroughs clerk of the County Court of Prince Anne, aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify, that the

foregoing are true transcripts from the records of the said Court.
In testimony whereof, I have set my hand and annexed the seal of the said court, this 23 rd day of August in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and forty seven, in the 72 nd year of the Commonwealth.
(signed) J. J. Burroughs C.C.
Virginia, Prince Anne County, to wit:
I William Whitehurst presi- ding Magistrate of the County Court of Prince Anne aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify, that John J. Burroughs who hath given the preceding certificate, is clerk of the said Court, and that his said attestation is in due form.
Given under my hand this 23 rd day of August 1847
(signed) William Whitehurst Jr
Treasury Department
Third Auditor's Office
March 5 th
I certify that this is a true copy from papers on file in this office, in the Half Pay case of Thomas Corwell, dec d .
J. S. Gallahue Audt

country that my occupation formerly was a "rough Carpenter" but the infirmities of age and blindness make me unable to perform any sort of labor when had I any property in the year 1818.
Schedule of John Purrell in March 1818 in March 1818 - no property in May 1820 no property at this time no property John Purrell mark
Sworn to in open court
Geo. M. Smith Clk March 29. 1831.
I John M. Smith Clerk of the County Court of Fauquier, in Virginia do hereby certify that it appears to the satisfaction of the Court that the said John Purrell did serve in the Revolutionary war, as stated in the preceding declaration against the Common- wealth, for the term of nine months under one engagement, in the Continental establishment.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the said Court on this 29th day of March 1831, and in the 55th year of the Commonwealth.
Geo. M. Smith, Clerk of the County Court of Fauquier in Virginia.

Pension Office
May 5. 1838.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in this Office.
Geo. Columbus Commissioner

Cohrs of 176.
Decis of Powell v Rev:
Rev: who claims to have land within Capt. Powell's

Declaration in order to be continued on the Pension list under the Act of May 1 st 1820.
County of Fauquier, S t . State of Virginia
On the 29 th day of March in the year of Christ 1821 personally appeared, in open Court at his o- Court of Record for the County of Fauquier, John Powell, resident in said County and aged seventy five years who being first duly sworn according to law, doth on his oath make the following declaration in order to obtain the Pension made by the acts of Congress of 10 th March 1818, and the 1 st May 1820, that he the said John Powell enlisted for the term of six during the war on Easter Monday to the best of his recollection in the year 1779 in the State of Virginia in the Virginia Regiment commanded by Capt. Thomas Cirtell in the Regiment commanded by Col. George Linton in the line of the State of Virginia in the Continental service that some short time after Brandywine defeat, he with the Company of Captain Thomas Cirtell was transferred to the Command of Col. Prentiss  Dunlop and that he afterwards under the command of Col. Wadsworth  Wadsworth and so served at the Siege of York in the Fall of 1781. That after this he marched to the Southern States from which he returned and in the Spring of the year 1782 he was discharged at Warrenton in Virginia which was he understands after the war was considered over. That he hereby relinquishes every Claim to a Pension what- soever except the present that his name was placed on the Pension roll or list and placed to John

Parol. 2 d from which it was extracted. And since then he has had no fixed place of residence, but has been living about from one place to another, wherever he could get support, his certificate has been lost and is now lost, and not within his possession, consequently he cannot give its date or number, nor are they recalled. That he did not exhibit his claim to be restored to the Pension roll because he did not know until very lately that Sikes' regiment was now decided to have been a Continental regiment, and that the cause of striking off his name now ceased to exist. And in pursuance of the act of the 1 st May 1820, I now solemnly swear that I was a resident citizen of the United States on the 18 th day of March 1818 and that I have not since that time by gift, sale or in any manner disposed of any property or any part thereof with intent thereby to diminish it, so as to bring myself within the provision of an act of Congress entitled an Act to provide for certain persons engaged in the Land and Naval service of the United States in the revolutionary war passed on the 18 th day of March 1818, and that I have not now, nor has any person in trust for me any property or securities, contracts or debts due to me, nor have I any income or property of any description whatever, and I am living at the time at the charge and charity of my

Session Copy.
April 26, 1848
I hereby Certify that I have examined the Claim of the administrator of the late Thomas Ewell, and find that the said Ewell was reported by the Board of Officers which sat at Richmond, as a Captain of the first Virginia State Regiment entitled to half pay for life.
The case is, therefore, provided for by the act of Congress of the 5 th July 1832, entitled "An act to provide for liquidating and paying Certain Claims of the State of Virginia," and it is my opinion that the claim should be allowed at the rate of two hundred and forty dollars per annum from the 22 d April 1783, to the first January seventeen hundred and ninety six, he having died in the beginning of that year, and that the amount is payable to William H. Purcell, the administrator on the estate of the said Ewell. J. L. Edwards
Approved
Commissioner of Pensions.
W. L. Marcy Secretary of War.

District of Columbia
Washington County, to wit:
The United States of America,
To all persons to whom these presents shall come, greeting: Know ye, that the last will and testament of Thomas Ewell let of Princes Anne County Virginia - deceased, hath in due form of law, been exhibited, proved, and recorded in the Office of the Register of Wills, for Washington County afore said, a Copy of which is to these presents annexed; and that administration of all the goods, chattels, and credits not all ready administered out of the said Thomas Ewell - deceased, is hereby granted and committed unto William F Purcell of the County and District aforesaid -
Seal
Witness, Nath l P. Causin esquire, Judge of the Orphans' Court of Washington County, District of Columbia, this 10 - day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 48 and of the Independence of the United States the 72 - Teste
Ed. N. Roach,
Register of Wills.

2 On the motion of William H. Purcell who give bond with security according to law, and it appearing by satisfactory evidence that John Ewell the former administrator with the Will annexed on the estate of Thomas Ewell deceased late of Prince Anne County Virginia, who was a Captain in the Virginia State line during the War of the Revolution Certificate is granted him for obtaining letters of administration de bonis non with the Will annexed on the estate of the said Thomas Ewell de d
Nath l Pope Causin
28 th March 1848
True Copy
Test, Ed. N. Roach Register of Wills
April 10, 1848.
I do swear, — that I, will well and truly administer the goods, chattels, and personal estate of already administered on of Thomas Ewell — deceased, to the best of my knowledge, according to law, and will give a just account of my administration when thereto I, shall be lawfully called, so help me God.
Wm H Purcell
Sworn before,
Ed. N. Roach Register Wills

This is to certify, That it appears from a list in this Office of such Officers and Soldiers of the Virginia State line, during the Revolutionary War, as settled their Accounts, and received Certificates for the balance of their full pay, according to an act of Assembly, passed the November session 1781, that a Certificate issued on the 9 th day of July 1783 in the name of Thomas Ewell as Captain of Infantry for £298.0.5, which Certificate appears to have been delivered to himself — and was given for services prior to the 1 st January 1782.
Given under my hand, at the A Auditor's Office, Richmond this 12 th day of November 1847.
Jas E. Heath Auditor.
{ No Seal of Office }
I also further certify that it appears from a list of Officers names who have received Certificates for one and two years advanced pay agreeable to Act of Assembly passed November session 1781. That a Certificate issued on the 8 th day of Feb y , 1782 for £300.0.0 in the name of Thomas Ewell a Captain of Infantry in the State line which Certificate appears to have been delivered to himself
Given under my hand at the Auditor's Office Richmond this 12 th day of November 1847.
Jas E. Heath Aud. V. A.

3 The United States Dr
To Thomas Ewell deceased Captain in the Virginia State Infantry
for his half pay from April 22, 1783 to January 1, 1796 about which time he died, being
12 years 253 days at $240. dollars per annum $ 3046.36
Allowed by decision of the Secretary of War dated April 26, 1848
Act to provide for liquidating & paying certain claims of the State of Virginia Approved July 5, 1832
Dollars 3046.36
Treasury Department
Third Auditor's Office
April 27, 1848
With by
J. P. Wickpatrick
Treasury Department
Second Comptroller's Office
April 28, 1848
E. C. - S. H.

D.D. Y.O.
Saragett November 1 st . 79
Col. Gist
The rest of the shoes in possession of Lieut. Woten to be divided this evening in proportion to the strength of each Corps, including the Artillery.
The Regimental Paymasters will apply accordingly. The Division to hold themselves in readiness to march at a Moments Warning. But not to strike their Tent till beating of the Genl. The Division to be inspected on Wednesday and Thursday next beginning with the 2 nd Virginia Regt. on Wednesday Morning at 9 o'clock
  For Police  Capt. Thomas Ewell    For the Day  Adjt. Cary.    For Piquet  S. C. D    For in G o  " " 1    For Gd  " " 1     " " 1     } 3.  
The above is extracted from some papers in my possession belonging to the Historical Society - presented by Col. Labaree's
James E. Meeth
Richmond Nov. 12, 1877

In the name of God amen, I Thomas Ewell of the County of Prince George, being sick of body and disposing Mind and Memory do Make this My last Will and Testament in Manner and form following. Item, I give and bequeath unto my well beloved wife Frances Ewell the use of fifty acres of land being the Wester most part of the Plantation I now live on, including the dwelling house Kitchens, Barns, Crops &c. also the use of my Negro Man Named Africa, and my two Negro Women Sabina and Kate & their children Sam, Bridget and Phillis and their future increase, likewise the use of two beds and furniture such as she may choose also my chairs, one Walnut table and all my kitchen furniture of what nature or kind so ever, my Hand Mill and my horse called Prince, three Mares called young Polly, Pleasant and old Fly during her widowhood, but at her Marriage or death which ever may first happen I then give the use of the said fifty acres of land unto my Son James Ewell until such time that he marries and has a child and then and not till then, I give the said fifty acres of land to him and his heirs forever, but in case he should die before he has a child lawfully begotten, I then give the said fifty acres of land unto my Son Thomas Ewell and his heirs forever. Item, I give and bequeath unto my Son James Ewell the use of the

5 use of the remainder of my land untill such time that he Marries and has a child and there and not till then. I give it to him and his heirs forever, but in case he should die before he has a child lawfully begotten I then give it to my son Thomas and his heirs forever. Item, I also give unto said James Ewell, my negro man Cuffy, and two Mares called Pidgeon and old Polly, one horse Cart, two Cows and Calves, one two years old heffer, five Ews, three young Sows and Pigs and the bed he commonly lies on, to him and his heirs forever. Item, I give unto my son in law William Nimmo Dyson, my negro boy named Peter, two Cows and Calves, one Mare called Nancy, and a feather bed which he now has in possession to him and his heirs forever. — all the residue and remainder of my estate of what nature or kind soever. I do give the use of to my said well beloved wife Frances during her widowhood and at her marriage or death which ever may first happen, it is then my will and desire that the whole of what I have left her the use of exclusive of the fifty acres of land should be equally divided between my two sons Thomas and John, and I do hereby give it to them and their heirs forever. I do hereby appoint Nominees and constitute my beloved wife Frances, and my son James Ewell Executor and Executor. In Witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and

Seal this 19 th day of January Anno: Domi: 1789.
Thomas Ewell
Esq d
Signed, Sealed, published
in presence of
Jonathan Park
James Williams
Ward Millison
At a court held for Princess Anne County the 1 st day of February 1790. The above last Will and Testament of Thomas Ewell deceased, was proved according to law, by the oath of Ward Millerson one of the Witnesses to the same, who also made oath that he saw James Williams who is since dead and Jonathan Park who is beyond Sea, subscribe their names as Witnesses to this Will, in presence of the Testator and at his request, which is ordered to be recorded. The Executor herein named being dead and the Executor, refusing to qualify, on the motion of John Ewell who made oath and gave bond with security according to law, Certificate is granted him for obtaining letters of Administration on the estate of the said Thomas Ewell deceased with the Will annexed in due form.
Test-
E. H. Mosley CLK d
A Copy True
L. J. Burroughs C.C.

7 State of Virginia Princess Anne County, to Wit:
I, John J. Burroughs Clerk of the County Court of Princess Anne, aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify, that the foregoing are true transcripts from the records of the said Court.
In testimony whereof, I hereunto set My hand and annex the seal of the said Court, this 23 d day of August in year of our Lord one thousand eight-hundred and forty seven, in the 72 d year of the commonwealth.
J. J. Burroughs C.C.
Seal
Virginia Princess Anne County, to Wit:
I William Whittemet presiding Magistrate of the County Court of Princess Anne aforesaid, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify, that John J. Burroughs who hath given the preceding certificate, is Clerk of the said Court, and that his said attestation is in due form. — Given under My hand this 23 d day of August 1847.
William Whittemet Jg

N o 1
Evidence Marked
(P)
Report of Registrar of Office at Richmond on the identity of the Small.

Thomas Ewell's Case - Statement in the hand-writing of W m Helms Register of the Land Office.
On the 4 th July, 1783, the executive allowed land bounty to Captain Thomas Ewell of the State line; and on the next day Cap n Thomas Ewell received his warrant for 4000 acres of land.
On the 29 th of July, 1834, the executive allowed land bounty to the Heirs of Captain Thomas Ewell of the State Line; provided, a warrant for the same service had not previously issued.
The records of the Land Office do not shew that Cap n Thomas Ewell who received his bounty in 1783 had a double name. Neither in the original executive order of 4 th July 83 nor in the record shewing what the register did in pursuance of that order - does any letter denoting a double name, intervene between Thomas and Ewell .
Mr W m Helms who applies now to receive an additional allowance of land under the executive order of the 29 th July 34. brings proof that the heirs claiming the additional allowance are the heirs of Thos Winder Ewell, and as there is nothing of record in the Land Office to shew that Thos and Thos Winder Ewell were the same person - so the Register is unwilling unless the over

6 Governor or the Law Officer of the Gov- ernment, will so advised - to issue a warrant to the heirs of Th Winder Ewell.
W. S.
Executive Department,
March 10, 1848.
I hereby certify that the foregoing are true copies of papers on file in this department. Wm H. Richardson for Secy Com
I certify that the foregoing is a true & correct copy of the original on file in this office.
Treasury Department,
Third Auditor's Office,
December 29, 1853.
Wm. G. ...
Auditor.

CHARLES FIERER—LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF. [To accompany Bill H. R. No. 903.]
DECEMBER 24, 1860.
Mr. DUELL, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made the following
REPORT.
The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred the petition of the administrator de bonis non, with the will annexed, of Captain Charles Fierer, a captain of cavalry in Dabney's State legion during the revolutionary war, in the Virginia State line, asking commutation, having given credit for the payment on the 26th November, 1836, paid by the treasury of the United States to said Fierer's representatives, report:
That the proof in favor of the demand shows that said Captain Charles Fierer was an officer in the Hessian army; that he resigned his commission in that army and was appointed a captain in the Virginia State line, in Nelson's corps of cavalry, in Dabney's legion, in the revolutionary war; that his services as a captain in the above service, until the end of the said revolutionary war, are clearly shown by the depositions of Dudley Diggs, an officer in the same legion, Vincent King, and Jane Haney; by a certificate of the register of the land office of the State of Virginia, dated December 9, 1793. It was also decided by the governor and council of that State that Charles Fierer was entitled to the proportion of land allowed a captain of the State line for the war, and that on the 16th December, 1793, a warrant was issued in pursuance thereof to Captain Charles Fierer, of the State line for the war; and by the decision of James L. Edwards, late Commissioner of Pensions, and approved by the Secretary of War , made on the 25th November, 1836, and on the next day the government of the United States, at the treasury, paid to Captain Charles Fierer's legal representatives the sum of $3,466 03, under the act of Congress of the 5th July, 1832; and refused to pay a further sum, when, in fact, it is shown by the said act of Congress of the 5th July, 1832, and the declaratory resolution of said act, by the House of Representatives of the 7th February, 1833, the acts of the 3d March,

1835, and the 12th August, 1848, declared by the Attorney General of the United States, in the case of John M. Galt, in March, 1849, to be legislative interpretations of the said act of Congress of the 5th July, 1832, under which many claims were paid, that a larger sum was due at that time to Captain Charles Fierer's representatives for commutation, he having served to the end of the revolutionary war in the State line—he, Fierer, having received nothing during his life, and all the other officers for the same rank and service received the commutation of five years' full pay, with interest, from Virginia when they demanded it, under the act of the assembly of Virginia of the 16th December, 1790, being a copy of the resolution of Congress of March 22, 1783, paying the continental officers commutation of five years' full pay, with interest, to all those who had served to the end of the war, and by the said acts of Congress of the 5th July, 1832, &c., &c. The United States repaid to the State of Virginia the sum that said State had paid to said officers, by judgments rendered in their favor by her courts for half pay and commutation, because the government of the United States had, by said acts of Congress, assumed all that Virginia was bound for, and could be sued for and made to pay on account of those regiments designated in said acts of Congress. And the Secretary of the Treasury was further required by said act of Congress to adjust and pay all those claims still remaining unpaid in favor of the claimants on the principles already settled by the courts of said State of Virginia; and it appears that there are but few cases except this remaining unpaid, if any , coming within the provisions of the law. That the judgment rendered against the State of Virginia, on the 31st day of December, 1845, in the circuit superior court of Henrico, in the city of Richmond, in the State of Virginia, for commutation, &c., against the Commonwealth of Virginia, in favor of the legal representatives of said Charles Fierer, as a captain in the Virginia State line during the revolutionary war, is a valid demand against and is binding on the government of the United States, it appearing that the credit on the face of said judgment of $3,466 03, received at the treasury on the 26th November, 1836, has been given.—(See also the decision of J. R. Poinsett, Secretary of War, in the case of Doctor Applewhite.)
That it is clear, in the opinion of your committee, from the act of the legislature of Virginia, discovered in 1850 by the attorney, and the deposition of Vincent King, taken in 1849, that the said Fierer did not resign his commission in the Virginia line, as it was urged, because the said act of Virginia of the 11th December, 1793, (in Henning's Statutes at Large, new series, vol. i, page 282,) for the relief of said Captain Charles Fierer, refers to his service in the State legion, (which was Dabney's legion,) which was not raised until after the surrender of Cornwallis, in October, 1781, which facts, taken together with the record evidence before mentioned of his service to the end of the war, are conclusive in his favor. The question on this point was no doubt erroneously raised by Virginia in reference to his resignation of his commission in the Hessian army, and not the Virginia

State line, as the said act of Virginia for his relief recites his resignation in the Hessian army before his acceptance as captain in the Virginia State line. A favorable report was made by Hon. Mr. Corwin in this case at the second session of the 33d Congress. Your committee, from the law and the foregoing facts, are clearly of the opinion that the demand is binding on the government of the United States, and they therefore report the accompanying bill and recommend its passage.

This Report and Resolution, although made in the case of Captain Fiver, fully embraces the principle in the case of Capt. Thomas Ewell, the record of which is herewith appended.
See also, the able decision of the late Secy of the Interior, Hon. Caleb B. Smith, made in 1861, in the said case of Capt. Fiver, of record in the Department of the Interior.

On motion of Mr. Duell, by unanimous consent,
Resolved , That the Committee on Revolutionary Claims be discharged from the further consideration of the claim of the administrator of Captain Charles Fierer, and that the demand be sent to the Department of the Interior with the accompanying report.
Mr. Francis P. Blair, jr., from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill of the Senate (S. 3) providing for the better organization of the military establishment, reported the same with an amendment, in the nature of a substitute therefor.
The House having proceeded to its consideration—
The said amendment was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a third time.
It was accordingly read the third time and passed.
Ordered , That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in the said amendment.
Mr. Sedgwick, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill of the Senate (S. 14) for the better organization of the marine corps, reported the same with amendments.
The House having proceeded to its consideration—
The said amendments were severally agreed to, and the bill ordered to be read a third time.
It was accordingly read the third time and passed.
Ordered , That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in the said amendments.
On motion of Mr. Sedgwick, by unanimous consent, bills of the Senate of the following titles, viz:
S. 20. An act authorizing the appointment of an assistant Secretary of the Navy and fixing the salary of the same, and for other purposes;
S. 21. An act to increase the medical corps of the navy, and for other purposes; and
S. 36. An act to provide for the construction of one or more armored ships and floating batteries, and for other purposes; were severally taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.
Mr. Frederick A. Conkling, from the select committee on a reduction of government expenses, reported the following resolution, viz:
Resolved , That the committee appointed to report in what manner and to what extent the expenditures of the government may be reduced, shall have power to sit during the recess of Congress, and to send for persons and papers, and that a clerk may be appointed at the usual rate of compensation.
After debate,
The question was put, Will the House agree thereto?
And it was decided in the negative.
So the said resolution was disagreed to.
Mr. Ward, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on Commerce, reported a bill (H. R. 73) to authorize the issue of a register to the steamer Estella; which was read a first and second time.
Ordered , That the said bill be engrossed and read a third time.
It was accordingly read the third time and passed.

Ordered , That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate therein.
Mr. Ward moved that the vote by which the said bill was passed be reconsidered, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; which latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. Eliot, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 74) to increase the consular representation of the United States during the present insurrection; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee on Commerce, and ordered to be printed.
The Speaker having proceeded, as the business next in order, to call the States and Territories for bills on leave and resolutions,
Mr. Hutchins introduced a bill (H. R. 75) defining the duties and fixing the compensation of the Clerk, Sergeant-at-arms, Postmaster, Doorkeeper, and Librarian, and settling the number and pay of the other employés of the House of Representatives, and for other purposes; which was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on Accounts.
Mr. Burnett submitted the following resolution, viz:
Resolved , That the Secretary of War inform this House whether there are any negroes in the army of the United States which have been armed; whether there are negroes, the property of citizens of any of the revolted States, which have been used by the army in any character of military duty, throwing up of breastworks, making entrenchments, &c.; if so, at what places, and the number of slaves thus employed?
Pending which,
Mr. Burnett moved the previous question; which was seconded, and the main question ordered to be put,
When
On motion of Mr. Sheffield,
Ordered , That the said resolution be laid on the table.
Mr. Arnold submitted the following resolution; which was read, considered, and agreed to, viz:
Resolved , That the select committee on the location of an armory be instructed to inquire into the expediency of locating such armory at Chicago.
On motion of Mr. Bingham, by unanimous consent, the bill of the Senate (S. 25) to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes, was read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Roscoe Conkling, by unanimous consent, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill of the Senate (S. 37) to regulate the police force of the city of Washington, reported the same, with a recommendation that it do not pass.
Ordered , That the said bill be laid on the table.
And then,
On motion of Mr. Stratton, at 2 o'clock and 12 minutes p. m., the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1861.
The following petitions were laid upon the Clerk's table, under the twenty-fourth rule of the House, to wit:
By Mr. Corning: The petition of citizens of St. Lawrence county, New York, for a compromise bill, embracing the Crittenden proposition.
By Mr. Nugen: The petition of John G. Smith and one hundred and fifty others, citizens of Coshocton county, Ohio, for a national convention, and a peaceful solution of our difficulties.
By Mr. W. G. Steele: The petition of citizens of New Jersey, of like import.
Ordered , That the said petitions be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. Ward: The petition of James M. Sanderson for the improvement of the cooking in the army; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.
A message from the Senate, by Mr. Forney, their Secretary:
Mr. Speaker : The Senate have passed a bill of this House of the following title, viz:
H. R. 64. An act to refund the duties on arms imported by the States; without amendment.
The Senate have also passed bills of the following titles, viz:
S. 38. An act making an appropriation to pay the expenses of transporting and delivering arms and munitions of war to the loyal citizens of the States, of which the inhabitants now are, or hereafter may be, in rebellion against the government of the United States, and to provide for the expense of organizing them into companies, battalions, regiments, or otherwise, for their own protection against domestic violence, insurrection, invasion, or rebellion; and
S. 42. An act in addition to the "Act to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the laws and protecting public property," approved July 22, 1861;
in which I am directed to ask the concurrence of this House.
On motion of Mr. Stevens, by unanimous consent, the bill of the Senate (S. 41) supplementary to an act entitled "An act to authorize a national loan and for other purposes," was taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.
The Speaker having proceeded as the regular order of business to call the committees for reports,
Mr. Eliot, from the Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill of the House (H. R. 14) to increase the consular representation of the United States during the present insurrection; reported the same without amendment.
Ordered , That the said bill be engrossed and read a third time.
Being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time and passed.
Ordered , That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate therein.

Mr. Eliot moved that the vote last taken be reconsidered, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; which latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. Sedgwick, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom were referred bills of the following titles, viz:
S. 36. An act to provide for the construction of one or more armored ships and floating batteries, and for other purposes;
S. 20. An act authorizing the appointment of an assistant Secretary of the Navy, and fixing the salary of the same, and for other purposes; and
S. 31. An act to increase the medical corps of the navy, and for other purposes; reported the same severally with amendments, which amendments were severally agreed to, and the bills ordered to be read a third time.
They were thereupon severally read the third time and passed.
Ordered , That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in the amendments of the House to the said bills.
Mr. Sedgwick moved that the votes by which the said bills were passed be reconsidered, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; which latter motion was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Francis P. Blair, jr., by unanimous consent, the bill of the Senate (S. 42) in addition to the act to authorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the laws and protecting public property, approved July 22, 1861, was taken from the Speaker's table, read three times, and passed.
Ordered , That the Clerk acquaint the Senate therewith.
Mr. Francis P. Blair, jr., moved that the vote by which the said bill was passed be reconsidered, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; which latter motion was agreed to.
The Speaker appointed Mr. Lovejoy a member of the Committee on the Territories in the place of Mr. William Kellogg, excused.
Mr. Bingham, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported the following resolution, which was read, considered, and agreed to, viz:
Resolved , That the President be requested immediately to communicate to this House, if in his judgment not incompatible with the public interest, the grounds, reasons, and evidence upon which the police commissioners of Baltimore were arrested, and are now detained as prisoners at Fort McHenry.
Mr. Bingham moved that the vote last taken be reconsidered, and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; which latter motion was agreed to.
Mr. Stevens, by unanimous consent, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill (H. R. 76) to provide for the payment of the police organized by the United States for the city of Baltimore; which was read a first and second time.
The House having, by unanimous consent, proceeded to its consideration,
Pending the question on its engrossment,

Department of the Interior. Pension Office.
November 1865.
Mr. James Harlan. Secretary of the Interior.
Sir.
In the matter of the Application of the representative of Thomas Ewell, deceased, for Commutation of Half Pay, referred to me for a re-examination of its merits and a Report to You of my conclusions, I have the honor to state, that, on the 24 th of April, 1848, the Commissioner of Pensions, with the approval of the Secretary of War, allowed the Mrs. W. F. Purcell, as Administrator, de bonis non, with the will annexed, of Thomas Ewell, deceased, $3046. 36 / 100 being half pay, as a Captain of Infantry, in the Virginia State Line, from April 22 nd 1783. [when the Governor of Virginia disbanded her State troops] to January 1 st 1796, when the Officer and testator died. In 1849, this claim was asserted. It appears to have been acted upon repeatedly by this Office, and by the Department upon appeal. Its allowance was at the time authorized by Secretary Ewing and subsequently refused, for the reason that, the identity of the Claimant was not satisfactorily established. Since this action of Mr. Ewing, wherein the claim has been considered, the claim has been considered several times, and the uniform decision has been that, it was not embraced within the provisions of the Act of 5 th of July,

1832, under which Act, all the former adjudications of this Class of Claims, has been held. In consequence, of the construction given to the Act of 5 th of July, 1832, from 1850. to 1861. by the Department. It is presumed this claim was taken to the "Court of Claims". This Court does not appear to have passed in judgment on the case. On the 22 nd of November, 1861. the Secretary of the Interior rendered a decision in the case of the Representatives of Charles Fiero, which determines, that this Class of Claims was embraced by the 3 d Section of said Act of the 5 th of July, 1832, and certain other acts and Resolves of Congress, which should be regarded as legislative interpretations of said Act of July 5 th . This decision led to the transfer of the claim under consideration, from the Court of Claims to this Office, for adjudication. Upon examining into the merits of the claim, there appears to be but one question of fact , about which, there is any doubt, and that relates to the identity of Thomas Elwell, with the service, it is claimed, he performed. This service, it is alleged, was in the capacity and with the rank and commission of a Captain of Infantry, in the First Regiment of the Virginia State Line, commanded by Col. George Gibson.
The Assembly of Virginia in July, 1775, passed an act authorizing several Regiments to be raised for State defence. Under this Ordinance, sixty eight men composed a Company and no commission was to issue, until the Company was complete and priority of completing the Company, gave the rank, precedence

and Seniority of the Captains in the respective Regiments. At the October Session of the Assembly of Virginia in 1776, three Battalions were authorized to be raised. These Battalions were composed respectively of ten Companies and each Company of sixty eight men and non-Commissioned Officers. Under the of these Ordinances, the First and Second Regiments of the Virginia State Line were raised, it is presumed, the latter.
The Original Muster and pay rolls of the First Regiment of the Virginia State Line, are upon file in this Office. They show that, one Thomas Ewell or Thomas W. Ewell, was Commissioner as a Captain in said Regiment, January, 31 st 1777, and had the command of Company 2 nd in the Regiment. They do not clearly indicate, which was the Officer in question. The name of Thomas, and of Thomas W. Ewell, frequently appears on the same roll & in the same Capacity. They are not uniform; they were, evidently, written at different times and generally by other hands, than that of the true Officer. Thomas Ewell, resides in Prince Ann County, Virginia and Thomas W. Ewell, in Prince William County, Virginia. One of these persons, served as a Captain in said First Regiment, from January, 1777, to the Commencement of 1780, and subsequently, with the same rank, to the close of the War. To determine, if Thomas Ewell, was such Officer, is the object of this investigation. It appears by the Original entries of payment made by Virginia,

that, the Executive Council of the State, ordered on the 24 th of January, 1777, that a Warrant issue to Thomas Blackburn, for the use of Thomas Ewell, for £179. 4. 5 On account for recruiting expenses and Bounty of a Captain's Quota of Regulars for the service of the State [Bons executed]. Upon file in the Department of State, is the Original Oath of Allegiance, taken and subscribed by Thomas Ewell, as a Captain, in Camp, May 12 th 1778, and Certified by General Muhlenburg. This Oath was taken and subscribed agreeably to the Resolve of Congress of the 3 rd of February, 1778. In an Order issued by Col. Gist, at Caragett, on the 1 st of November, 1779, Captain Thomas Ewell, is named for Police duty. It appears from certain payments made by the State of Virginia, that there was issued and delivered to Thomas Ewell, as Captain of Infantry, on the 8 th day of February, 1782, a Certificate for £360, as Advanced Pay, agreeably to the Act of the November Session of 1781, and that, on the 9 th of July, 1783, there was issued and delivered, by the State of Virginia, to Thomas Ewell, as a Captain of Infantry, a Certificate for £298. 0. 5. being the balance of his full pay for services prior to January 1782. By a Report of the Board of Officers, which convened in Richmond, in February and April 1782, agreeably to an act of the Assembly, passed at the October Session of 1781, to determine what Officers of the State Line, were in service to the close of the war and entitled to Half Pay and Bounty, Thomas Ewell, is reported as a Captain of the First Regiment of the State Line,

in Service, am entitled to Half Pay & Bounty. The Official Statement of the Register of the Pay Office at Richmond, shows that, the Executive Council of Pa. allows the Claim of Thomas Ewell, for bounty law, as a Captain, during the War. July, 4 th 1783 and that, July 5 th 1783. Warrant Numbered 1329. for 4000 acres, was issued to Thomas Ewell as a Captain aforesaid. From the declaration of one John Powell, filed in this Office as early as 1829, for a Continuance of the pension allowed him under the Act of 18 th of March. 1818, it appears that, he, Powell, enlisted on Easter Monday, in 1779, in the State of Virginia, in a Company commanded by Captain Thomas Ewell, in a Regiment commanded by Col. George Gibson, in the Service of the State of Virginia, that, shortly after Beaufort's defeat, the Company of Thomas Ewell, together with himself, were transferred to the command of Col. Beaufort, that, he was afterwards, under the command of Col. Dabney, and so served at the Siege of York, in the fall of 1781 and was afterwards, marched to the Southern States, from which he returned in the Spring of 1783 & was discharged. It is in evidence at the Field Auditor's Office, of the Treasury, that, John H. Smith, a Commissioner of the State of Virginia, in a letter addressed to Governor Magruder, May 2 nd 1832, referred to Thomas Ewell as follows, viz: "In the "printed list No. 2. accompanying my report to the Governor, "which was, communicated to the last Legislature, I saw "of Thomas Ewell, he was Captain in January, 1777. In "1782, he was reported entitled to Half Pay, and then in "

"Service, he is entitled to Pay for the War. The Council found: "and the Report of the Board of Officers, which sat in Richmond: "in 1782, prove these facts! If Your Excellency should allow him; "it ought to be allowed for a Service as Captain in the State." "Since from January 1777: to the end of the War." It appears from the Statement of the Register of the Pay Office at Richmond, that, On the 29 th of July, 1834, the Executive has allowed him Bounty to Captain Thomas Ewell, of the State Line, provided, a Warrant for the same service, has not previously issued and that, Subsequently, the heirs of Thomas W. Ewell, applied for him , under this Order of the Executive, which application, was rejected by the Register aforesaid. In refusing to recognize this Claim of the heirs of Thomas W. Ewell, unless ordered otherwise, by the Governor or law Officer of the Government, the Register contends, that, the Records of the Pay Office do not show that, Captain Thomas Ewell, who received Bounty in 1783, has a double name, neither does it appear on the Original Executive Order of July, 11 th 1783. Nor, in the record showing, what the Register did in pursuance of that Order, that, there is nothing of record in the Pay Office, to show that, Thomas and Thomas Winder Ewell, were one and the same person. The Affidavit of Churchill Gibbs, one of the Officers of Col. Gibson's Regiment, who have received Com- -mutation, is on file in the Thurs Auditor's Office. It is under the date of April 2 nd 1834. He states in substance that, he became acquainted with Thomas Ewell, an Officer in said Regiment, in May 1777, thinks he was a Captain, that,

he understood, he raised a Company of Men, may have been appointed the latter part of 1776 or early in 1777, that he marched to the North and returned in 1780. Chief Justice Marshall, states, in a Certificate on file in the Office of the Thuri Auditor, dated July 21 st 1834, that he was well acquainted with Captain Thomas Ewell, during the War. Became acquainted with him soon after his Regiment, [which he believes was the 1 st or 2 d in the State Line] marched to the North. He must have entered the Regiment when it was first raised. He saw him frequently. He, Marshall left the service in 1781, but, has understood and believes that, Captain Ewell, continued in service. From a Certified Copy of the Will, of Thomas Ewell, it appears to have been made in Prince Ann County, Virginia, the 19 th of January, 1789, & was entered of Probate February 1 st 1796. In this will the testator recognizes James, Thomas, and John Ewell, as his sons and heirs at law. At a Hustings Court, held in the Borough of Norfolk, Va. February, 27 th 1834, the Court found upon the affidavit of George Dudley, aged sixty five years, that Thomas Ewell, of Prince Ann County, Va. was a Captain in the Virginia State Line, during the War, that he died in the beginning of the year 1796, leaving three sons, viz: James, Thomas, and John, his heirs at law. The Court of Quarterly Sessions, held in and for Prince Ann Co. Va. March, 2 nd 1835, certify that satisfactory evidence has been adduced to prove that, James, Thomas and John Ewell, were the sons and heirs at law of Thomas Ewell, deceased, late of said County, who

Served as a Captain in the Virginia State Line, during the war.
From the affidavit of John B. Ogg, filed in the Case, taken March 21 st 1848, at which time, affiant was seventy five years old. It appears that he was  resided in the neighborhood formerly the neighbor of Captain Thomas Ewell, of Prince William County, Va. for many years, and knew him well by reputation as well as that he always understood, he was a Captain in the Virginia State Line, from 1777 to the end of the war and that his Uniform Coat was in his house to the day of his death which occurred in January, 1796.
It is further shown by the affidavits of Bertrand Ewell Hays, and the Reverend Jesse E. Weeks, made and filed in 1849, whereby that they are the heirs of Thomas W. Ewell, of Prince William County, Va. that they came in possession of part of his estate, devised by Will, and, that the latter affiant was, at one time Administrator on said estate, that, after a personal inspection of the Oath of Allegiance on file in the Department of State, signed by Thomas Ewell, they are confident it was not signed by their ancestor Thomas W. Ewell, nor is any part thereof written with his hand, that, the heirs of said Thomas W. never received law from Virginia, for his services and they do not believe Thomas W. Ewell, was ever allowed law.
From this Chain of evidence, it would

appear, that, but little doubt could exist, as to the identity of the Claimant of the that Thomas Ewell, of Prince William County, Virginia, was a Captain in the First Regiment of the Virginia State Line, from January 31 st 1777, to the close of the war, and that his Representatives were entitled to all the benefits, in contemplation of law, such service conferred; but, it appears that, the Representatives of Thomas W. Ewell, of Prince William County, Va. many years since, set up a claim for said Bounty and Commutation of half pay, for, it is believed, the identical service, claimed by the Applicant in this case.
Without dwelling upon the significant fact, that the rolls of Col. Gibson's Regiment of the Virginia State Line, show that the Officer was called and recognized by the name of Thomas W. Ewell, as well as Thomas Ewell, it appears by a Certified Copy of a Certificate given by Col. Blount, an Officer of the State Line, and in Command of the Second Regiment of the State Line, given June, 29 th 1783, that Thomas W. Ewell, served as a Captain from January 1777, to the first of April, 1782. * It is also in evidence that, the heirs of Thomas W. Ewell, brought a suit and recovered a judgment against the State of Virginia, in Henrico Co. for Commutation of Half pay, in 1834, that, the judgment has been paid. It is further shown that, the Attorney of the Representatives of said Thomas W. asserted a claim for Bounty, same, against

the State of Virginia, in 1832, that this Claim was not allowed. The Records of this Office show that, the surviving heir of said Thomas W. Ewell, was allowed Warrant Number 2497, for 300 acres of land, February, 13 th 1856, for the service of said Thomas W. as a Captain in the Continental Line . This Warrant was issued for the identical service in controversy in this case, but, the service was held to be in the Continental Line, agreeably to a decision of the Secretary of War of the 12 th of January, 1830, which held, that, Col. Gibson's Regiment was a Continental Regiment from October, 1777, it appearing to his satisfaction, that, by an Act of the Virginia Assembly, that it was put in the place of the 9 th Virginia Continental Regiment, which was nearly destroyed at the Battle of Germantown. See letter of the Hon. Lewis Cass, Secretary of War, the 11 th of January, 1832, addressed to the Hon. J. S. Barbour, of the House of Representatives.
It appears also by a further examination, by a letter from Jas. C. Heath, Esq., a Auditor of Virginia, addressed to Mr. Wallace Esq., May, 2 nd 1848, that, there was no Thomas Ewell, in the State on any other Line, and that the erroneous idea that there was an Officer of that name, sprung from the mistake of omitting the W. in Mr. Barbour's Report made at the 1 st Session of the 22 nd Congress, that Charles and Thomas Windsor Ewell, were brothers and Officers in said Regiment, that Thomas, died the Year after the war, that Charles lives

to a good old age and that, he knew him well, as he was a relative of his, that Charles often spoke of his brother Thomas, who received bounty, land and depreciation and his representatives have since received Commutation and interest.
It is apparent, that two distinct persons on their representations
It is a fact well established of recent, that Thomas W. Ewell, made his will, in May, 1780, at Dumfries, Virginia and died in 1784.
From these proofs, it is manifest that, two distinct persons on their representations have received allowances, in one mode or another, from the State of Virginia and the United States for one and the same service. That both were entitled, and to be concurred is preposterous. Which was the true Officer, Thomas or Thomas W.? By referring to the affidavit of Jas. S. Edwards recently made and filed, as additional evidence in this case, it appears that he, as Commissioner of Pensions, allowed the Half pay Claim of Thomas Ewell, in 1848, that this claim for Commutation now under consideration, was allowed by Secretary Ewing, upon an appeal from his, Edwards' decision, that subsequently he rejected or caused it to be rejected by Mr. Ewing, for the reason that Mr. Heath, a Auditor of Virginia, positively asserted, there was but one Thomas Ewell, in the service, and that was Thomas W. Ewell, that he, Edwards

I presume the several statements made by Mr. Heath in reference to the facts have received much consideration. From his position and character for many years as Auditor of Public Accounts, for the fact that he has stated what others than enemies might think is not always to give the reasons which induced him to make these statements. It is charitable to suppose that some conjectures are inferred by some from what he has in his possession. They cannot, however, be received to impeach the records made at an early day with reference to the officers in question.  Mr. Wallace 2-7.
Did not then know Mr. Heath to be a relative of said Thomas W. that he has not seen the Oath of Allegiance when he rejected the Claim, that the Certificate of payment made by Virginia to Captain Thomas Ewell, greatly conflicts with Mr. Heath's letters to him. Major  Commissioner Edwards gives it as his opinion, after examining the Oath of Allegiance, the Affidavits of Rev. Jesse E. Wheeler and Bertram Ewell Waye, and said Certificate of payment, that there can be no doubt that Thomas Ewell, of Prince Ann Co. Va. is the true man, who served to the end of the War in Col. George Gibson's Regt. of the Pa. State Line. Without reference to Mr. Heath's statements to the Official before him.   Mr. Heath's statement with reference to the division of the party  between the two sides, is not supported by the facts, and I presume  the facts of the same, as shown in his statement to Gen. Wallace, herein before heretofore given, and that it  should be regarded as his Heath's conjecture, for if Mr. Heath's  accepted statement of Mr. Heath He states for it cannot be the statement of Mr. Heath, because he accepted an record as an impeachment of the record made at an early day with reference to the officers in question particularly, as he has Officially reported, as Auditor of Virginia, that the payments made by Va. in 1782 & 3 were made to Captain Thomas Ewell. and the fact, is well established of record that, the Grant of Land and depreciation, was not in the name of Thomas W. Ewell, but in the name of Thomas Ewell. I presume there is no conjecture on the part of Mr. Heath.  The payments

made by the State of Virginia in 177. 1782 & 1783 for the service in question, the Oath of Allegiance in 1782 , the Order of Col. List in 1779 , the Report of the Board of Officers in 1782, and the Grant of  all refer to an officer named Thomas G. ... Law in 1783, were made contemporaneous with, and by parties, identified with the service. Do they truly pertain the Officer who performed the service?
After a thorough  investigation and giving due legal effect to all the  resources in the case , I am of the opinion that the preponderance of evidence weight of evidence , is in favor of the Claimant, but, I do not think the question of identity is established with such certainty as to warrant me in issuing a Certificate without your advisement.
I have the honor to be, Very Respectfully, Your Obedt Servt.
Sept 20. 1861, Written
Com do
After a thorough investigation of the case, including an examination into the history of the "Clapp's Claim" and the progress of the claim, which has been allowed. I am of the opinion that it is a bona fide claim, and that the only one, which can be urged in it, and force upon the attention of the Dept. that the weight of the evidence in this case, and the legal  after due legal affects to the present, is with the Claimant.

Washington D.C. April 1 st 1865.
Sir:
In reply to your enquiry to state all that I know in relation to the claim of Captain Thomas Ewell of the Virginia State line in the war of the Revolution.
I was Commissioner of Pensions in the year 1848 when I allowed the half pay to the estate of Captain Thomas Ewell, as I considered the evidence in his favor of the most conclusive character. In 1849 the claim was presented for commutation under a decision of Secretary Ewing made in the case of John M. Galt approved by Attorney General Johnson, and after Secretary Ewing had ordered the claim to be paid on appeal I received from James Ewell Heath then Auditor of Virginia, letter positively asserting that there was but one Captain Thomas Ewell in the service, and that was Thomas Myles Ewell of Prince William County Virginia. This statement of said James Ewell Heath induced me to reject the claim of Captain Thomas Ewell for commutation of the First Virginia State Regiment, whose claim for half pay I had allowed the year before. At that

time I had much confidence in the statements of said James Ewell Heath from his Official position as Auditor. In my opinion, (rejecting the claim) to Secretary Ewing I stated what said Heath had written to me, and Secretary Ewing on the 4 th of September 1849 affirmed my decision.
In 1850 a letter was written by Secretary Ewing in reply to yours, stating that in order to re-open the case, you would have to show new evidence. I have been to day and also a few days since much evidence of an important character in favor of the claim and identity of Captain Thomas Ewell, and from my recollection, and examination of said record evidence, I am satisfied, the case was re-opened by Secretary Ewing in 1850 - and that if it was not, that clear justice demands that it should now be re-opened on the question of identity from the record and other evidence adduced since the rejection in 1849 already referred to - The oath of allegiance sworn and subscribed to by Captain Thomas Ewell descriptive of himself and rank is unanswerable which I did not see until after my decision against the claim for commutation - The Patent to Thomas Ewell in 1795 on the Warrant granted in 1783 to Thomas Ewell by the Executive of Virginia, the depositions of Rev Jesse E. Mear the Administrator with the will annexed to Thomas W. Ewell, and Bertrand Ewell Hays both of whom were his

of Thomas Winder Ewell, obtained in 1849 after the rejection, that the oath of Allegiance was not the hand writing of Thomas Winder Ewell, and that they received none of the proceeds of the land warrant. I have also seen his official papers certified by said Heath Auditor, to the service of Captain Thomas Ewell, which greatly conflicts with his letter to me. I further state, that I did not know, that at the time said Heath wrote to me, that he was a relative of Thomas Winder Ewell, as appears by a letter written by him to Emma Wallace in 1848, which letter has been lately brought to my notice. It would appear by a certificate given by Col Beut in 1783, and filed by Mr Nelson Agent, that if Thomas Winder Ewell, was in service at all, that he was in Beut's, which was the the 2 d State Regiment and that he quit the service on the first of January 1782, therefore not Thomas Ewell who was reported in service to the end of the war in Gibson's First Regiment. I have not a doubt from investigation and new facts, that Captain Thomas Ewell, whom you represent, is the true man who performed the service to the end of the war in George Gibson's, First Virginia, State Regiment.
Very respectfully
James L. Edwards, late Commr. of Pensions
Hon. W m F. Purcell
Administrator of Thomas Ewell.

District of Columbia Washington County, 3 56
I, John T. Callan a Notary Public in and for the District & County aforesaid, do certify that on the 26 th day of April 1865 before me in said District personally came James L. Edwards well known to be the person who subscribed the foregoing instrument of writing & who was formerly Commissioner of Pensions & made oath in due form of law, that the facts stated in that paper & subscribed by him are true to the best of his knowledge & belief
Given under my hand & seal this 26 th day of April 1865
John T. Callan Notary Public

Affidavit of - Jas. S. Edwards, for Com. Pension Subject -

United States of America.
Washington County, District of Columbia, to wit:
To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting:
Know Ye, That on the death day of April in the year of our Lord 1848 Letters of Administration D.B. A.W.A. of all and singular the good, chattels, and credits, which were of Thomas Powell late of Virginia, deceased, was by the Orphans' Court of Washington County aforesaid, granted and committed unto William T. Powell of said County, the said Administrator D.B. A.W.A. as aforesaid of said deceased, having first entered into bond in the sum of Two Thousand dollars, with approved securities, for the faithful performance of the duties thereof; and that on the 23 rd day of Feb. 1862 the said Wm. T. Powell gave an additional bond as administrator D.B. A.W.A. aforesaid in the sum of fifteen thousand dollars with approved securities under act of Congress of 1846.
Witness my hand and the seal of the Orphans' Court of Washington County aforesaid, this 2 nd day of September A.D. 1862.
Seal:
M. H. Williams. Registrar of Wills.

Feb. 6 th 1863.
Third Aid to Prisoners

Treasury Department,
Third Auditor's Office,
February 6 th 1803.
Sir:
I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date renewing the application for copies of papers relating to the half-pay claim of Thomas Ewell. You state that the copies are wanted "to be used at the Pension Office where the poor heirs are advised that a few hundred dollars may yet be due them". This being the case, I have the honor to inform you that the application for information from the files of this office should come from the Commissioner of Pensions; and that upon such application being made it will be furnished as soon as it can be done consistently with the other duties of the office.
I am, Sir, Very respectfully,
Your obt Servant
D. J. M c Kim
Auditor.
W. H. Purcell, Esq. Washington
I hope the above request will be made by the Pension office, in as much as Mr Drey, and Whiting

Reports the papers which were filed mis- = laid or lost after diligent search
Wm H Purcell Admin = is Trustee of Thos. Earle 9 th July 1863

Mr. Pearson, Sturminster 2 Books, rolls of Col. Hubbs Recd. 1 st Oct. before Oct. 1 st Library of The British -

Off. Sol. Genl's Claims Washington Dec 28. 67
Sir,
I have the honor to return herewith two volumes of rolls of Gephart's Regt. of Virginia State Troops, which have been exhibited to this Court as evidence in the claim of H. F. Penick, adv. of Thomas Coxe, due for commutation alleged to be due the latter as an officer of said Regiment.
Very Respectfully M c Call Sherman Deputy Sol.
Geo. Whiting Esq. Commr. Decisions.

Feb. 5 th 1863
Proceed To B. Ault

3. Auditor's Office Washington City 5 Feb 1863
I have to day received your reply to mine of the 3 rd . in relation to My Call for a copy of the papers in the case of Thos s Ewell, at which I was much s ur prised in as much as it is in my Judgment Contrary to all usages of your Depart- ment and all others — you say if I wish them to be used in another Tribunal, that Tribunal must order them. I say I wish them to be used at the Pension office Where the poor heirs are advised that a few hundred Dollars may yet be due them. The Papers were Copied at this Dept.

Most some years since and after a diligent search which was closed a few days since at that office by Mr. Whiting & Drew was reported lost, I then asked them to send her for a copy; but was informed that I as administrator should do that. Under the above circumstances I respectfully ask that a copy be made out The papers are not voluminous and I think can be copied in a few hours. I wish an early reply.
Respectfully yours etc H. F. Purnell

H. Evell,
B.
Secty: of Interior to Com. te of Indian. Aug: 17 th 1887. Declining to consider the case.

Copy.
Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. August 17 th 1857.
Commissioner of Pensions:
Sir.
I return to Your Office, the papers in the case of the Administrator of Thomas Ewell, decd. for commutation and interest, under Act of July 5 th 1832, and upon which an Appeal has been taken from Your decision.
This claim was taken before the Clerk of Claims and argued and submitted on the 11 th May last, and is now awaiting its judgment.
Under this condition of the matter, I am not disposed to reassert jurisdiction over the claim, and shall leave the Administrator to the decision of the tribunal he has sought.
The Attorney in the case has been so informed.
I am Your Respectfully, J. Thompson. Secretary.
Signed

Thomas Ewell.
C.
Secty: of the Interior Aug: 17 th 57 declining to Consider the case.
To W. F. Fawell.
Adm l !

1 Copy
Department of the Interior. Washington, August 17 th 1857.
W. F. Purcell.
Sir:
Your claim as Administrator of Thomas Ewell, dec d . for commutation and interest, under Act of July 5 th 1832, and upon which you have taken an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Pensions, appears to have been argued and submitted to the Board of Claims, on the 11 th May last, and is now awaiting the decision of the judges.
Such being the condition of the case, I must respectfully decline to consider it.
I am very Respectfully, Your Off l . Serv! J. Thompson. Secretary.
1 signed

Washington, D.C., Oct. 8 th /57,
Mr. S. Purcell,
Recd. Oct. 8 th /57,
3 Quads off Oct 4. 1857.
Ref d inf d to the form d of Pensions. The papers re- ferred to herein were sent to the Pension Off ce on the 21 Oct 1848. and have not since been in possession of this Off ce . Mr Purcell informed.
Yours faithfully
Wm Lloyd
Mr Taylor,

Washington City 5 th 1857 Dear Sir
It is important for me as adm of Capt Thomas Ewell to have immediately a certified Copy of the list containing the Judgments rendered by the Courts of War for Revolutionary Services of other Officers referred to in the act of Congress passed the 12 th Augt 1848 in the Appropriation Bills.
Respectfully with Jno H Purcell
To the Honble R I Atkinson 3 Auditor
Oct. 21 st 1848

Copy
Treasury Department Third Auditor's Office October 21. 1848
Sir,
I herewith return the papers in "the claim of the State of Virg a filed by Thos. Green", which you sent me upon my request on the 13 th inst t : finding that there are some items which particularly refer themselves to your notice, and the whole subject requiring your preliminary examination as necessary to a settlement thereof in this office.
Please to return the receipt given for the above papers on 13 th inst t .
Respect ly &c -
P. Hagner. Auditor.

W. 6
1777. Cert. for Pay.

Friday the 24 th day of January 1777.
Ordered that a warrant issue to Thomas Blackburne esquire for the use of Mr Thomas Ewell for one hundred and seventy nine pounds four shillings on acct for recruiting expences and Bounty of a Captain's Quota of Regulars for the service of this State. (Bond executed.)
Executive Department
Richmond V a April 6 th 1857. —
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an order in the Journal of the Executive Council of this State, and of the date prefixed.
George W. Munford Secy of the Com te

Thomas Ewell, died 26 Apr 1828. Act 5 July 1832
Certificate
Records vol 43. page 193 & 194
Jul 1 1846, 30 Apr 28/1848 W 210 p. and p.
MS

Pension Office
26 April 1848
I hereby certify that I have examined the claim of the administrator of the late Thomas Ewell, and find that the said Ewell was reported by the Board of Officers which sat at Richmond, as a Captain of the first Virginia State Regiment entitled to half pay for life. The case is therefore provided for by the act of Congress of the 5 th July 1832, entitled "An act to provide for liquidating and paying certain claims of the State of Virginia", and it is my opinion that the claim should be allowed at the rate of two hundred and forty dollars per annum from the 22 April 1783 to the 1 st  first  January 1796  seventeen hundred and ninety six, he having died in the beginning of that year, and that the amount is payable to Wm. F. Purcell, the administrator on the estate of the said Ewell.
Approved
Secretary of War
Commissioner of Pensions

The United States
Dr
To Thomas Emwell, deceased, a Captain in the Virginia State Infantry, during the Revolutionary war.
To 5 years full pay, in commutation, according to the acts of Congress 5 th July 1832 - 3 rd of March 1835 and 12 th August 1848, and the decision of the Attorney General, in the case of John M c Galt, given in 1849 and also the decision of Secretary Caleb P. Smith, in the case of Capt Charles Fiser, given in 1865
$2400
Interest on the same from the 22 nd day of April 1783, until the 28 th day of April 1848
9360
11760
Then paid to the Administrator
3046.36
8713.64
Interest on above balance from 28 th April 1848 until paid.
The above sum is demanded by the Administrator.
W m T. Purcell
Administrator

Statement of fact a similar case - plus I suppose in a English magazine

The United States D r
To John Alinson Galt
Major in the Virginia State Troops
For five years full pay with Interest thereon from April 22. 1783 till 30. June 1833, being the amount of the judgement obtained by him in the Circuit Superior Court of Henrico County Virginia in June 1847 deducting therefrom money received by his representatives, from the Treasury of the United States, to wit
5 years full pay at 725 per ann. . . . . $ 3625.00
Interest on the same April 22. 1783 to
19 June 1833 (when payment was made by U.S.) $ being 50 years & 57 days c 67. . . . 16.910.15
$ 14.535 15
deduct payment by U.S. June 19. 1833 } per Report N o 63157 . . . . . }
8.759.34
5775.82
Interest on this sum June 19. 33 to June 30. 33. 11 days. 10.44
5786.26
deduct payment by U.S. May 6. 1845
132.16
Dollars 5.554.10
Interest on the same July 1. 1833 to March 29. 1849
Amount due - 15 years 272 days - 5.342.29
Allowed by decision of Secretary of Interior $ 10.996.39
Dated March 28. 1849. Act to provide for liquidating and paying Certain Claims of the State of Virginia approved July 5. 1832
Treasury Department
Third Auditor's Office

March 29. 1849
Stated by J. B. Kirkpatrick

Received 29 th March 1849 of the Third Auditor of the Treasury, Reg d No. 39. dated. this day, for Ten Thousand, Nine hundred & Ninety Six dollars and Thirty Nine Cents, in full, of the within account $ 10.996.. 39
James Lyons Atty for Gen Galt's Adm t
Treasury Department Third Auditor's Office Oct. 28 th 1864
I certify the foregoing to be true Copies from the originals on file in this Office.
E. Sells Auditor

It seems to me that the principle established in Rucker's case decides the within case.
Wm Wilkins
March 3 rd 45.
Triplett & Ewell.
Pension claimants.
Hon. Mr. French.
Do the cases of St. Triplett and Capt Ewell differ from that of S. Rucker of Gibson's Regi- ment, and if so in what par- ticulars?
If there are no new principles or facts, these claim- ants should follow the decision in that case.
War Dept Feby 21. 45.
E
See the written opinion in the case Rucker.

House of Reps 27th
Jany 1845-
Hon. J. L. Edmonds
Sir. Not long after congress met I inclosed the copy of the bond to be executed as the admir of Geo. Triplett dec'd late of Spencer county Ky as additional evidence of the rights of his widow to the amount of half pay due on application for which was pending in your office. I should take it as a favor if you can act upon this case at any in a day or so  early date in kind am very respectfully yours
H. Grier

House Rep Decr 9/44 Hon J. L. Edwards
Sir, Please, at your earliest convenience, give your attention to the case, now pending in your office, of the admr of Lt Geo. Triplett decd late of Spencer City Ky. claiming the arrears of half pay due under the act of Congress of 5th July 1832.
You have inclosed a copy of the admr's bond yours with respect
H. Rider

Aug: 17 th 57
Oslo, Norway

On the 11th day of March, 1852, Mr. [illegible] of [illegible]

N o 2
Col Lists order to Capt Thos Swell 1779

D. O. F. O.
(copy)
Carayett, Nov 1 st '79. Colo Gist
The rest of the shoes in possession of Lieut Moten to be divided this evening in proportion to the strength of each corps, including the Artillery.
The Regimental paymasters will apply accordingly.
The Division to hold themselves in readiness to march at a moments warning. But not to strike their Tent till beating of the Genl. The Division to be inspected on Wednesday & Thursday next beginning with the 2 nd Virga Regt on Wednesday morning at 9 o'clock.
For police
Capt Thos Evell
For police
the Day
Adjt Cary.
S. C. P
  For precinct  "  "  1  } 3.    For in G d  "  "  1    Dr G d  "  "  1  
The above is extracted from some papers in my possession belonging to the Historical Society - presented by Col Dabney's exec.
Jas E. Heath
Richmond, Nov. 12, 1867.
I certify that the foregoing is a true & correct copy of the original on file in this office.
Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office.
December 29, 1885.
Auditor.

1869 January 18 The claim of the heirs of Luett. Sam l Browning has declined to take up the case.

Call Evell half penny - a.0 July 5 1882
I am directed by Acting CC to endorse that left morning declines & consider this case.
We Trade out
Jan 18. 1869

Argument for the Hon. Wm. F. Purcell, administrator, with the Will annexed, of Thomas Ewell, on applica- tion for commutation of half pay and interest, and ap- peal from decision of the Commissioner.
To the Hon. THOMAS EWING, Secretary of the Interior.
The only question now remaining in this case grows out of the two names of Thomas Ewell, and Thomas Winder Ewell. All other questions are settled. At a late hour, after several decisions in favor of the Mr. Purcell, administrator, with the will annexed of Thomas Ewell, a question of identity which had been settled, is now revived.
That Thomas Ewell, and Thomas Winder Ewell, were different men, who really lived and died in different counties in Virginia, cannot be doubted.
The last will and testament of Thomas Winder Ewell, bearing date 26 May, 1780, was duly proved and admitted to record on the 2d March, 1784, in the County Court of Prince William, Va.
The last will and testament of Thomas Ewell, bearing date 19 January, 1789, was duly admitted to probate on the 1st February, 1796, in the County Court of Princess Anne, Va.
These two men have given rise to as many, or more, mistakes and confusions, as Dromio of Ephesus and Dromio of Syracuse, in the Comedy of Errors. The mysteries there, were solved by the presence of the one and the other, Dromio face to face. In this case, both the men are dead, and therefore, the mysteries cannot be cleared away by themselves. But they have left behind them, mementoes and public records, and surviving witnesses, from which it may be ascertained to a reasonable degree of human certainty and proved as the rational and proper belief, that Thomas Ewell was the officer entitled to half pay for his services, as Captain in the State line of Virginia, to the end of the war of the Revolution, and therefore, entitled to commutation of five years full pay and interest, under the act of

Assembly of Virginia, passed 16th December, 1790—(Session acts, chap. XXI, p. 12—13th Henn., p. 131.)
As to the commutation, with interest, the question is settled, that the payment made of half pay to Mr. Purcell the administrator, with the will annexed of Thomas Ewell, is no bar to his claim to commutation, with interest, deducting the payment of 28th April, 1848.
The objection, to the claim of the half pay to the administrator, cum testamento annexo, of Thomas Ewell, because of the claim of the administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, was actually interposed, before the decision of the Commissioner, J. L. Edwards, of the 26th April, 1848, was overruled, and payment made to the sd. administrator of Thomas Ewell.
It would seem to the minds of impartial men, that after that decision in favor of the administrator, with the will annexed, of Thomas Ewell, and payment to him of the half pay, that the only question on the claim for commutation and interest, was whether the law allowed commutation and interest in such a case, and that when the Attorney General had decided the question in favor of the administrator, with the will annexed of Thos. Ewell, that all controversy was at an end.
But Commissioner Edwards, has, notwithstanding his own former decision approved by the Secretary of War, Mr. Marcy, thought fit, in his letter of the 24th July, 1849, to the Secretary of the Interior, to say, "that the Representatives of Thomas Ewell of Princess Anne County Virginia, have no just or legal claim to commutation, half pay, bounty land, or any other gratuity whatever, for Revolutionary service" and that, "the person who performed the service was Thomas Winder Ewell, formerly of Prince William County, Virginia."
This gross inconsistency, Mr. Edwards' attempts to justify by his letter to the Secretary of the Interior, of the 31st July, 1849. And Mr. James E. Heath, the Auditor of the State of Virginia, and a relative of Thomas Winder Ewell, by his maternal blood, in answer to a letter of the Secretary of the Interior, to Mr. Heath as Auditor of Virginia, asking for certain copies of certain official documents, has in his letter of the 30th July, 1849, interposed an excuse in behalf of Mr. Commissioner Edwards, (conscious that Mr. Edwards' course needed apology,) and furthermore has had the indecency to say, "I have recently transmitted to Mr. Edwards an elaborate review of Ewell's case, with the request that the same should be submitted to you as I had understood, that the claims of one Thomas Ewell of Princess Anne, (which I consider as entirely spurious,) had been submitted to you."
These doings on the part of Mr. Heath and the Commissioner Edwards, have imposed on the party representing the estate of Thomas Ewell, the necessity of recurring to the subject of identity, and the evidence to sustain the claim of the administrator, with the will annexed of Thomas Ewell.
On behalf of the administrator, with the will annexed of Thomas Ewell, I propose :
 1st. To explain and enforce the evidence in his behalf.  2d. To notice the letters, opinions, and evidence interposed for the representatives of Thomas Winder Ewell, and to confute or answer objections. 
And 3d to confirm.
I.—As to the evidence in behalf of Thomas Ewell.

In the outset it is to be noted, and therefore remembered, that Thomas Winder Ewell died, and his will was proved in March, 1784—and that Thomas Ewell died in the early part of the year 1796, and his will was proved 1st February, 1796.—The most prominent proofs in behalf of Thomas Ewell are:
1st. The oath of allegiance, by Thomas Ewell, Captain 1st. Va. State Regiment, signed by Thomas Ewell at camp, 12th May, 1778, certified by J. Muhlenberg, Brig'r. General, is to be seen in the original, in the Department of State. A certified copy is filed in this case.
This oath is in the form and manner prescribed by the resolution of Congress, of February 3d, 1778; and it was also resolved, that any officer who shall continue, or presume to exercise any Commission, without taking the oath prescribed, shall be cashiered, and forfeit two months pay, and be incapable of serving in the army of the United States. (Journals of Congress, by Way & Gideon—vol. 2, p. 427, 428 and 429.) This deliberate solemn act, subscribed by the party's own hand, descriptive of himself by name and rank, in pursuance of the resolves of Congress, is evidence of identity of the highest character.
2d. The Division Orders of Nov. 1, 1779, in which Captain Thomas Ewell is named for police, with others for adjutant of the day, Piquet guard, &c.
3d. Council Chamber of Virginia, January 24, 1777: "Ordered that a "warrant issue to Thomas Blackburne, Esq., for the use of Mr. Thomas "Ewell for £179 4s., on account for recruiting expenses and bounty of a "captain's Quota, of regulars for service of the State. (Bond executed.)"
4th. Certificate, issued 8th February, 1782, for £360 to Thomas Ewell, a Captain of Infantry in the State line, for advanced pay—delivered to himself.
5th. Certificate issued 9th July, 1783, to Thomas Ewell as a Captain of Infantry, for £298 0s. 5d., balance of pay according to the Act of Assembly—delivered to himself.
6th. Report of Board of Officers, who sat in 1782, and reported a list of officers entitled to half pay. In this Thomas Ewell is reported as captain, then in service, in 1st State Regiment. This authentic list was published by House Rep., Jan'ry 16, 1832—Rep. No. 191, vol. 1, of 1831-'32, page 53 of Rep. No. 191.
7th. Executive Council of Virginia, 4th July, 1783, allowance of land bounty to Thomas Ewell as captain.
8th. Land office, 5th July, 1783. Land warrant for military bounty issued to Thomas Ewell as captain; No. 1329, for 4000 acres.
9th. Survey of 4th March, 1787; for Thomas Ewell, for 2,000 acres, part of military warrant No. 2329, and grant dated 10th July, 1795, upon that survey, to Thomas Ewell.
Note. —At the date of this survey, Thomas Winder Ewell was dead, and had been dead more than three years, and when the grant issued, Thomas Winder Ewell had been dead more than eleven years. But Thomas Ewell was living at the time of the survey, and of the grant, and did not die until 1796. This shows, that the sd. Thomas Winder Ewell, or the heirs of Thomas Winder Ewell, were not the possessors or owners of the warrant and survey; but the living man Thomas Ewell was the owner.
10th. The affidavit of Churchill Gibbs, (an officer in 1st Va. State Regi-

ment,) states that he became well acquainted with Thomas Ewell, who joined the Regiment as a captain, in May 1777; marched to the North and returned in 1780 to Virginia.
11th. Statement of Chief Justice Marshall, became acquainted with Thomas Ewell, captain, soon after his Regiment (first or second Virginia State line,) marched to the North, saw him frequently, never heard that he resigned; he (Marshall) left the army in 1781.
12th. The deposition of George Dudley, states that he "was well acquainted with Captain Thomas Ewell deceased, that he served as a captain in the State line of Virginia during the war of the Revolution—that he died in the beginning of the year seventeen hundred and ninety-six, leaving three sons, viz: James Ewell, Thomas Ewell and John Ewell; that all of them are now deceased, leaving the following persons, viz: Mary Mills, Thomas Mills, Susan Mills, Hillary Ewell and Susan Green-wood, &c."
This deposition identifies Capt. Thomas Ewell, by the time of his death in 1796, and by the children he left at the time of his death. These sons are mentioned in Thomas Ewell's will and testament. Thomas Winder Ewell died in 1784; Thomas Ewell in 1796. The identification of Thos. Ewell as a captain in the State line of Virginia, by this deposition is exact, certain, and complete. There is no gap left; no loophole for putting the Thomas Winder Ewell, who died in 1784, into the place of the Captain Thomas Ewell who was living until the year 1796.
13th. Captain Thomas Ewell, in his oath of allegiance, calls himself Thomas Ewell; signs the oath with his own hand and name, Thomas Ewell, signs his last will and testament Thomas Ewell. Thomas Winder Ewell has not taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance as required of all officers of the army by the resolves of Congress; and in the body of his last will and testament, calls himself Thomas Winder Ewell, and subscribes it, Thomas W. Ewell.
II--As to the letters, opinions, evidence, and objections, interposed for the representatives of Thomas Winder Ewell.
The administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, has been so fortunate, as to recover against the Commonwealth of Virginia, by a decree of the Superior Court for the County of Henrico, commutation and interest, as due for the services of Thomas Winder Ewell, as a captain in the State line.
The duty of defending that suit belonged to James E. Heath the Auditor of Public Accounts of the State.
It appears by the letter of James E. Heath, of 12th February, 1849, to J. L. Edwards, that Thomas Winder Ewell and Charles Ewell were maternal relations of said Heath; of Thomas Ewell he had no knowledge.
The Auditor, James E. Heath, did not appeal from the decree of the Superior Court for the County of Henrico, pronounced on the 12th May, 1836, in favor of the administrator of his maternal relative, but, without getting the opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals, as he had done, and has done in all other cases of like kind; has certified the sum for payment at the Treasury, and so it has been paid.
Although the Auditor, James Ewell Heath, did not think fit to defend the State against the claim of the administrator of his maternal relation, Thomas Winder Ewell, yet against the claim of the administrator with the will annexed of his no-relation Thomas Ewell, he has made the most

vigorous resistance, has searched the records of the public office, tacked extracts together that have no connection, and drawn strange inferences and conclusions therefrom, sent copies of depositions selected by himself out of the case of his maternal relation's administrator, against the State of Virginia, written to Mr. Hagner, the Third Auditor, giving his "testimony," opinions, and argument, has written "an elaborate review of Ewell's case," which he has "very recently transmitted to Mr. Edwards," writes to the Secretary of the Interior his opinion that the claim for the services of Thomas Ewell is "entirely spurious," asks the Secretary to read that communication to Mr. Edwards, "as I am willing to stake my official reputation upon the fact," that Thomas Winder Ewell was the officer and no other, concluding with an apology for Commissioner Edwards's inconsistency.
If the Auditor of Virginia, James Ewell Heath, had contented himself with suffering the decree of the Superior Court for the county of Henrico in favor of the interest of his maternal relation to stand by itself, not at all interesting himself in the claim of Thomas Ewell, the conduct of the Auditor might have found excuse in the colorable circumstances in favor of Thomas Winder Ewell. But Mr. James E. Heath has descended from the dignity and impartiality of a public officer, has entered the field of controversy as the maintainer of the interest of his maternal relation, and opposer of the claim of the administrator of Thomas Ewell, with a newborn zeal in searching the records of his office and the other public offices, to discover all he can, to maintain his side of this controversy which he himself has created by his opinions and promptings to Commissioner Edwards; and here lies the root of the vexatious delay to which Mr. Commissioner Edwards has subjected the administrator of Thomas Ewell.
Of the style and manner in which Mr. Heath has interfered, in thrusting in his opinions, his "own individual testimony" of his conversations with Charles Ewell, his elaborate essays, and forced conclusions, backed by his "official reputation," the administrator of Thomas Ewell has just right to complain, as well as of the servility of the Commissioner, J. L. Edwards, to the opinions and promptings of Mr. Heath. Maintenance, is an offence at common law, and signifieth an unlawful taking or upholding sides, to the disturbance or hindrance of common right; punishable by fine and imprisonment; and whether the matter in dispute be depending in plea or not. This offence may be committed "by giving evidence officiously, without being called on to do it," or by giving, or endeavoring to give, any other assistance, to either party in the prosecution, or defence, or by officiously intermeddling in a controversy pending, by one not concerned in the matter, or by soliciting a judge to give judgment in favor of a party. How far Auditor Heath may come within the exceptions, of client and attorney, or nearness of kindred, &c., are matters which I leave to his own conscience and the judgment of his countrymen. He has said, "I am willing to stake my official reputation" upon the matter. It is not to do, but done. The dignity and impartiality of the officer has been compromised by the zeal of the partisan.
Neither the judgment obtained by the administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell against the State of Virginia, nor the depositions of John Nicholas and Angus Rucker, selected from the file of that suit; nor the order of the county court of Prince William, upon the 5th day of January, 1835, di-

recting that it be certified "that it was proven to the satisfaction of the court on the 3d day of February, 1834, that Thomas Winder Ewell, deceased, (and "not Thomas Ewell, deceased," as mentioned in said order,) was a captain in the first Virginia regiment," &c. &c.; nor the hearsay of Mr. James E. Heath, in his conversations with Charles Ewell; nor his opinions; are proper evidence against the administrator with the will annexed of Thomas Ewell in this case. They are not, according to the established rules of evidence and right, admissible to the prejudice of the administrator of Thomas Ewell, who had no opportunity to defend against such errors by cross-examination, or otherwise, and who is not party, or privy, to any of those proceedings in the courts of Prince William, or Henrico.
Mr. Heath has extracted from the records of the Land Office the certificate issued from the Council Chamber on the 4th of July, 1783, signed by Thomas Merriweather, countersigned by Ben. Harrison, "that Captain Thomas Ewell is entitled to the proportion of land allowed to a captain of the State line for three years' service." Whereupon warrant No. 1329 for 4,000 acres issued to Thomas Ewell, on the 5th July, 1783, from the Land Office of Virginia.
And he has also extracted from the records, the certificate in favor of the representative of Captain Thomas Tebbs, for his proportion of land for three years' service. Signed by Thomas Merriweather, and countersigned by Benj. Harrison, the 4th July, 1783. Endorsed, "I do certify that John Tebbs is the representative of Thomas Tebbs.
"Signed,
THOS. W. EWELL."
By virtue of which, a land warrant, No. 1330, for 4,000 acres, issued from the Land Office on the 5th July, 1783, to John Tebbs, heir-at-law of Captain Thomas Tebbs. From these separate and distinct transactions of Council on the 4th of July, 1783, and in the Land Office on the 5th of July, 1783, Mr. James E. Heath infers that Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell are one and the same; that Thomas Winder Ewell got the land warrant No. 1330, for 4,000 acres, issued to Thomas Ewell, instead of Thomas Winder Ewell.
The distinction between Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell, appears upon the face of the papers, as copied by Mr. Heath, from the Executive Council, and the Land Office, is observed and preserved in issuing the land warrant, which was carried into survey in November 1787, and into grant in July, 1796, to Thomas Ewell, then living, and not to the heirs of Thomas Winder Ewell, who died in the fore part of the year 1784. Such argument against fact marks the officious assistance which James E. Heath, Auditor of Public Accounts of Virginia, wills to yield to the administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, his maternal relation, and to his own staked "official reputation." Thomas Ewell, of Princess Anne, not having been a relative of Mr. James E. Heath, and unknown to Mr. Heath, the Auditor will not understand that Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell were different persons, but will persist, in spite of evidence of the actual existence of the two different men, that Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell was one and the same person, and rejects all evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Heath, as the Auditor of Virginia, suffered the judgment to go against the State, in favor of the administrator of his relative, Thomas Winder

Ewell, and to remain unappealed, whereby he apprehends he may be called to account, if it shall finally appear that Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell were different men, that the former was the officer entitled to commutation, and that the latter was not, (an issue he himself has chosen to make,) and under such circumstances of interest and influence, has as a witness and maintainer of the cause of the administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, and the opposer of the cause of the administrator of Thomas Ewell, shown himself by his letters to Commissioner Edwards, to Auditor Hagner, and to the Secretary of the Interior. Having so officiously, indelicately, and voluntarily obtruded himself personally, as a would-be witness not upon oath, a retailer of hearsay and opinions, a certifier of matters not of record, but giving color of record evidence by his manner of certifying, in a case in which the State of Virginia is not a party, but in which justice is petitioned for by a citizen under a law of the United States, he has no right to expect to be treated with delicacy or forbearance, in exposing the errors of his conduct.
Mr. Heath has sent to Mr. Edwards, as parts of his "elaborate review," two papers: No. 1, purporting to be the names of the officers of the 1st Virginia State regiment, from the first entering into service to the reduction of the regiment, signed by Lieut. Col. J. Allison, without date, the latest period mentioned in it, May 1st, 1780, without any note or memorandum, when it was deposited in the archives at Richmond. No. 2, purporting to be a return of the officers of the same regiment, in an unknown hand, signed with the name of George Gibson, Colonel, dated December 1, 178* Endorsed, "return of the officers of 1st. State regt.—22 Jany. 1781" proved, in Dec. 1826, before committee of Claims, that the name of Col. Gibson is in his own writing—in the body of the writing are certain alterations in a hand-writing different from the original. Mr. Heath, in his letter of 12th Feb. 1849, says, "These two documents were undoubtedly "before the board of Field officers which set in Richmond in February "and April, 1782, for the purpose of making such discriminations and re- "turning such lists as were required by the act of October, 1781, and "transmitted by the Executive to the Auditors for their guide in settling "and issuing warrants for half-pay—See Congressional Documents, 1 sess. "22 Congress, Rep. House of Rep. No 191,—It appears that in transcribing "the returns made to the board of officers, the middle letter W in Captain "Ewell's name was omitted." And to give color to his argument, Mr. Heath has ventured to certify officially, as Auditor, that the foregoing document No. 1, is an exact copy of the original list, "from which and other "lists the said board certified to the Executive what officers of the Virginia "line were entitled to half pay. Given under my hand," &c., "this 26th "July, 1849." (Signed) "James E. Heath, Aud. P. Acc'ts."
This certificate last quoted, is not the verification of any transcript of the record, is not copied from any record, but is a matter of mere inference, an original statement, made by Mr. Heath himself of his own head.
That these two papers may have been before the board of officers is probable; that they were so, does not help Mr. Heath's argument, for the board of officers made their report differing in many particulars from these returns No. 1 and No. 2.
That these lists were transcribed by the board, or for the board; that the omission of the letter W , was a mistake in transcribing, are phantoms

of Mr. Heath's imagination. Those lists were insufficient for the purposes for which the board of officers were convened in 1782. That board was composed of officers who had the means of correcting mistakes, from their own knowledge and long service in the army. Lieut. Col. Allison and Major Merriwether, Col. Dabney and Col. Brent, officers of the first and second Virginia State line, (who were in service together,) composed a part of that board. Without other materials and other information than that contained in those returns No. 1 and 2, the board could not have made the report No. 191; therefore, Mr. Heath says, "from which and other lists, the said board certified."—What other lists? Mr. Heath's certificate is of a matter dehors the record. The report of the board of officers convened in 1782, was a production of their own, made out by themselves in 1782, in execution of the purpose and end for which they were convened. It was duly authenticated and deposited in the public archives, for a guide to the Auditors as to the officers entitled to half pay and commutation. But Auditor Heath wishes to go behind that report so made authentic, "and transmitted to the Auditors for their guide in issuing warrants," and to lay a foundation for departing from it on the plea of correcting alleged mistakes by reference to documents which he supposes to have been before that board. That report of the board of officers was made in obedience to law, and is a rule and a law, to the Auditors on the subject of half pay and commutation of half pay, not to be impeached and altered upon the slender supposition of mistakes in transcribing from old lists and returns which may, or may not, have been before that board.
If these lists, No. 1 and 2, were before that board, then the field officers who composed the board, from other lists and returns, and their own knowledge, must be presumed to have supplied defects, corrected mistakes, and made their own veritable and authentic report.
If Mr. James E. Heath, as Auditor, intends to act, according to his argument in favor of his relative, by going behind that report of the board of officers for the purpose of altering it upon the allegation of mistakes, it is high time that he should be removed from office, and his place supplied by a person of more correct ideas, regular judgment, and obedience to rule.
By indefatigable industry in searching the books of the Executive council, Auditor's office, Treasurer's office and Land office, for every thing to favor the claim of the estate of Thomas Winder Ewell, (and for nothing to favor the estate of Thomas Ewell,) Mr. Heath has extracted copies showing very clearly that from the beginning to the end; from Alpha to Omega, in matters great and small, his relation, never omitted, on any occasion, to sign his name Thomas W. Ewell; never omitted the W. If he obtained a warrant for money, it issued to Thomas Winder Ewell, or to Thomas W. Ewell; if he signed a receipt, it was Thomas W. Ewell; when he signed his will it was Thomas W. Ewell.
When all the industry and research of Mr. Heath, and the administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, and of the heirs and distributees of Thomas Winder Ewell, have been exhausted, they have not been able to produce an oath of allegiance signed Thomas W. Ewell, nor a Land warrant for military bounty issued to Thomas Winder Ewell, nor to the heirs of Thos. Winder Ewell. Whilst the distinction between Thos. Ewell and Thos. Winder Ewell, existed as the differing names of two living men, by which they were respectively known to society, whilst this distinction exists in

the books of the Executive council, Auditors office, Treasury office, and Land office; yet Mr. Heath will insist that Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell, are one and the same, and claims to apply everything in the name of Thomas Ewell to the use of Thomas Winder Ewell, and his heirs and administrator.
When a high officer of government, uses the records, power, and influence of office, in maintaining, or in opposing, this or that party in a matter pending before a competent tribunal, it is an abuse and prostitution, lessening the faith and credit which his official acts should carry with them.
In the copy of the Order of Council of 24th January, 1777, filed by the administrator of Thomas Ewell, certified by Wm. H. Richardson, Secretary of the Commonwealth of March 27, 1848, the Order reads: "Ordered that a warrant issue to Thomas Blackburn, Esq., for the use of Mr. Thomas Ewell, for one hundred and seventy nine pounds four shillings, on account for recruiting expenses and bounty of a captain's quota of regulars for the service of this State. (Bond executed.)" (See No. 6, in red ink.) Mr. Heath has furnished a copy of the same order of council, certified on the 19th June, 1849, by "P. F. Howard, for Wm. H. Richardson, Secretary of the Comm'th," in which the words, ("Bond executed") are omitted. (See No. 6, in black ink.) And Mr. Heath has furnished copies from the Treasurer's receipt book; the one "1777, January 25, received one hundred and seventy-nine pounds four shillings, on account of Thomas Ewell, for recruiting [no charge nearly erased] expenses of a captain's quota of regulars for the service of this State." (Signed "S. Blackburn," "Governor's warrant, £179 4s. (2)") This copy has a black mark drawn across the name of S. Blackburn. Mr. Heath has also furnished copies of four receipts, signed by Thomas Winder Ewell, of the year 1777, for sums of money drawn by him from the Treasury, for bounty, recruiting money, pay, forage and necessaries, viz: Receipts of February 10; March 27; June 10, and July 5—and one of 9th July, 1783, for interest on a certificate.
The receipt of Thomas Winder Ewell, of 10th February, 1777, shows that he had then but twenty-nine recruits, and the receipt of 27th March, 1777, shows that he had then but fifty-one men for his company. These show that his company had not then been completed, and that he could not have then been entitled to a Commission at all, much less to bear date 31st January, 1777, before his company was completed. The ordinance of Virginia, of July, 1775, under which the first and second Regiments of State defence, were raised, fixed each captain's company at sixty-eight men, and no Commission to issue until the company was completed, and priority of completing the company, fixed the rank and precedence and seniority of the captain's in their respective Regiments. (See 9th Henn., p. 10 and 11.)
The receipt of 5th July, 1777, at the Treasury of Virginia, signed by Thomas W. Ewell, and the receipts before mentioned, are totally inconsistent with his claim as a captain in the first Regiment, marched to the North, June 11, 1777, under a Commission bearing date 31st January, 1777.
The receipt of S. Blackburn, for the use of Thomas Ewell, of 24th Jan., 1777, is not inconsistent with Thomas Ewell's Commission, dated 31 Jan., 1777.
By tacking the receipts signed Thomas W. Ewell, to the receipts signed

by S. Blackburn, for the use of Thomas Ewell, and by other like tackings, under the notion that the name of Thomas Ewell and Thomas W. Ewell, is one and the same, and that every thing in the name of Thomas Ewell properly belongs to Thomas Winder Ewell, the administrator and heirs of Thomas Winder Ewell desire to exclude the administrator and heirs of Thomas Ewell, from bounty land, half pay, and commutation of half pay. But why not appropriate all entries in the name of Thomas W. Ewell to the use of Thomas Ewell! Why not suppose that the W. was inserted by mistake, as well as to suppose the W. was left out by mistake? The one is just as probable as the other, in writings drawn up by other persons.
By the same ingenious means of supposing that Thos. Ewell and Thos. W. Ewell, was the one and the same name, for one and the same person, and tacking together all writings wherein the one name or the other occurs, the heirs and administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, under their claim to the benefit of both names, might as well claim any other of the lands and choses in action of Thomas Ewell, as the bounty land, and the half pay and commutation. On the other hand the heirs and administrator of Thomas Ewell, would have just as much right on their side to claim all entries, lands, and choses in action in the name of Thomas Winder Ewell, as the property of Thomas Ewell and his executors and administrators.
But inasmuch as the facts are undoubted, that there were two men; the one called and known by the name of Thomas Ewell; the other called and known by the name of Thomas Winder Ewell, the notion of applying every thing in the name of Thomas Ewell, for the use and benefit of Thomas Winder Ewell and his heirs, must be rejected.
The attempt was heretofore made to marry together, confuse and mingle the names of Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell, and all the services of the one and the other, and all the orders and entries in the public records, books and papers, which appeared in the name of Thomas Ewell, or of Thomas Winder Ewell, and by the compound to appropriate and transfer the sum total to the benefit of Thomas Winder Ewell and his heirs, executors and administrators, but it signally failed. On the 29th July, 1834, Mr. William Helm, as the agent of the heirs and representatives of Thomas Winder Ewell, upon petition to the Governor and Council of Virginia, presented for the heirs of Thomas Ewell, obtained an order for the issuing of the warrant for the bounty land of Captain Thomas Ewell of the State line, provided a warrant for the same service had not issued. Upon this, Mr. Helm applied to the Register of the Land office of Virginia. A warrant for 4,000 acres had issued before the order of the Executive of 4th July, 1783, but an additional bounty of land was due to the heirs of Capt. Thomas Ewell for his services over three years. This additional bounty Mr. Helm, therefore, desired to be issued to the heirs of Thomas Winder Ewell. This, Mr. Selden, the Register, refused to do, (because the order of the Executive of 4th July, 1783, was in favor of Thomas Ewell, and the warrant of the 5th July, 1783, for three years service, issued to Thomas Ewell, and the order of 1834, was for the heirs of Thomas Ewell, and there was nothing to show Captain Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell to be one and the same person,) "unless the governor, or the law officer of the government will so advise, to issue a warrant to the heirs of Thomas Winder Ewell." No such advice from the governor, or the law officer, was ever obtained, and so the warrant for the

additional land bounty due for the additional services of Captain Thomas Ewell above three years, could not be obtained for the heirs of Thomas Winder Ewell. (see the petition to the governor and council, the evidence, and the decision of the register—page 10, of document 1, [marked in red ink] referred to by Mr. Edwards in his letter to the Secretary.)
Of this claim of the heirs of Thomas Winder Ewell, to have the benefit of the entries in the public records of Virginia in the name of Thomas Ewell, Mr. J. L. Edwards, was apprized before he decided in favor of the administrator of Thomas Ewell, on the 26th April, 1848. The document above recited, was in Mr. Edwards' possession, and was one of the documents upon which he acted. Moreover,
These letters, of Wm. Helm, 15 Nov. 1834, of J. Murdaugh, March 8, 1834; of same, of October 19, 1834; of same, Nov. 1834, of Frances E. Hays, of 30th August, 1845, and of Francis A. Dickins, of 6th April, 1848, show that the attention of Mr. J. L. Edwards, the Commissioner, was attracted, over and over again to the claim of the heirs of Thomas Winder Ewell, as the opponents of the claim of the representatives of Thomas Ewell, of Princess Anne, long before his decision of the 26th April, 1848, in favor of the administrator of Thomas Ewell of Princess Anne. These papers show that the Commissioner's decision, awarding half pay to Mr. Purcell, administrator, of Thomas Ewell, of Princess Anne, notwithstanding the claim of the heirs and representatives of Thos. Winder Ewell, of Prince William, was not hasty, inconsiderate and unadvised; but, deliberate, solemn, and after great delay; that decision was approved by the Secretary of War and passed by the Third Auditor and Second Comptroller, and the money actually paid.
The representative of Thomas Ewell, of Princess Anne, had just right to confide that the controversy between him and the representative of Thomas Winder Ewell, was closed forever by the decision of April 26, 1848.
But in that he has been disappointed. And, strange to relate, the controversy has been revived, by force of a letter of 15th May, 1849, from Wm. Helm, and of the interference of Auditor, James E. Heath.
Mr. Helm states he has, as the attorney in fact of the administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, received $10,136 for commutation and interest upon the judgment of the Superior Court of Henrico.
That about the year 1834, he had filed a petition, in the name of "Captain Ewell's heirs," for his bounty land, &c. That he learned of Mrs. Davis, a niece of Captain T. W. Ewell, "that she had been in possession of a portion "of Captain Ewell's land warrant," and that her husband had "sold the warrant above alluded to, (I think 500 acres,) to a Mr. Robert Greer," &c.; that Judge Purcell has recovered from the United States, half pay for Thomas Ewell, and says, "If that claim is genuine, the one I prosecuted is otherwise; "I challenge investigation."——"I will hold myself ready to prove positively there was but one Captain Thomas Ewell, and that was Captain Thomas W. Ewell, in Colonel Gibson's regiment, and that he was transferred to "Colonel Dabney's legion, when it was formed," &c.
Of the letters and interference of Mr. James E. Heath, the relative of Thomas Winder Ewell, I have before said enough. Of the letter of Mr. Helm to the Secretary of the Interior, (referred to the Commissioner of Pensions,) some few remarks will suffice. It bears date long after Mr. Helm's application for the land bounty had been rejected, as before stated; after he knew

that the land warrant had issued to Thomas Ewell for 4,000 acres, and therefore Mrs. Davis could not have been possessed of that warrant, nor possessed of a warrant for 500 acres, more especially as the warrant which had issued was in the land office in Kentucky, upon which the patent had issued as to 2,000 acres, part of that warrant, without which warrant the patent could not have legally issued. In the letter, Mr. Helm was pleased to refer for information to Mr. James E. Heath, the Auditor of Virginia, and relative of Thomas Winder Ewell, who had so kindly suffered the decree to pass in favor of the administrator of his relative, Thomas Winder Ewell vs. the State of Virginia, and as Auditor, certified the decree to the Treasurer for payment, without appeal to the Supreme Court. In this letter, Mr. Helm, along with his reference to the impartial Mr. Heath, interlards much hearsay, with intent to excite prejudice against the claim of the administrator of Thomas Ewell.
In refusing to allow the commutation, Mr. Commissioner Edwards was prompted by the letters and opinions of Mr. Heath and Mr. Helm, as appears by his letter to the Secretary of the Interior, of June 4th, 1849. That I may not do him injustice I will quote his own words: "The statement of James E. Heath, Esq., Auditor of Virginia, (see paper No. 7,) who has the custody of the Virginia revolutionary records, and who is unquestionably better qualified from his official station, to give a correct opinion on the subject, affirms positively that there was but one Thomas Ewell in the service; that his middle name was Winder, which was omitted in some of the entries on the revolutionary books. The man who performed the service was, I have no doubt, Thomas Winder Ewell, of Prince William county, Virginia, and not Thomas Ewell, of Princess Anne county, Virginia, (see also the letter signed W. Helm, No. 8, and papers marked Nos. 9 and 10.)"
The opinions and letters of James E. Heath and W. Helm are avowed as the ground-work of Mr. Commissioner's determination to reverse his own solemn, deliberate decision given on the 26th April, 1848!!!
Commissioner Edwards says, Mr. Heath, Auditor of Virginia, "who is unquestionably better qualified from his official station to give a correct opinion on the subject, affirms positively that there was one Thomas Ewell in the service; that his middle name was Winder, which was omitted in some of the entries on the military books," therefore Mr. Edwards, the Commissioner, retracts his own solemn decision before officially made. When an officer of the United States, appointed to decide in so many important cases between the United States and the citizens having claims upon the government, commits such folly, self-debasement, and servility to the opinions and statements of men under strong influences of interest and blood, evidenced by the papers on file in the case, the claimants must pray for deliverance from evil, and take consolation that his decision is not final, although the delay is grievous.
In his letter of 31st July, 1849, the Commissioner Edwards, attempts an apology for his course in this case. Some statements in that letter, I must in charity believe proceeded from defect of memory, rather than from wickedness. The pay rolls or "muster rolls" alluded to, had been in the possession of the Commissioner Edwards for years: Why he refused the request of Mr. F. A. Dickins for an examination of them, and if he neglected to examine them himself, until he received the promptings, opinion, and positive affirmation of Mr. Heath, I pass, as questions not worthy

of discussion now. The subjects of the claims of Thomas Ewell, and of Thomas Winder Ewell, had been distinctly presented to the notice of Mr. Edwards, the Commissioner, before he made his decision in favor of the administrator of Thomas Ewell for half pay for life, commencing April 22d, 1783. But because Mr. Heath's positive opinion that Mr. Edwards's decision was wrong, and that Thomas Winder Ewell alone was the officer, Commissioner Edwards deserted his own faith, and pinned himself to the opinion of Mr. Heath, the blood relation to Thomas Winder Ewell.
III. As to matters of confirmation, I will hold myself, principally, to those which stand of themselves substantially; not mixing therewith, except in a few instances, matters of confutation.
The oath of allegiance, signed by Thomas Ewell in Camp, before Brig. General Muhlenburg, as required by the resolves of Congress, seems to be decisive and preponderating evidence in favor of Thomas Ewell, and against Thomas Winder Ewell. That same signature, peculiar and remarkable, will be found again and again, uniform and invariable, to many of the original pay rolls, together with the original oath of allegiance now remaining in the Department of State. The name of Thomas W. Ewell, wherever it occurs, differs in the character of the handwriting, essentially and visibly, from the handwriting in which the oath of allegiance is subscribed; and the handwriting of the name of Thomas Winder Ewell is not uniform, but has evidently been subscribed to the returns, by different hands at different times. Inspection alone of the originals, can give the whole force of the evidence on this head, and to that inspection I invite the Secretary.
The oath of allegiance as devised, in manner and form, by the resolves of Congress before cited, was an act in its nature solemn, being in effect and intent an identification of the officer taking it, by his true name, and his rank or commission. It was an occasion where a man and an officer could not, conscientiously, suppress a part of his proper cognomen, without violating the intent of Congress and the intent of the oath. In the form prescribed by the Congress, and pursued in this, and all other instances, to be found in the book of the Department of State containing the oaths of allegiance by the officers, the officer swears to his name, as well as to the fidelity of his engagement to defend the United States, and the abjuration of allegiance or obedience to the King of Great Britain.
The body of the oath is by Thomas Ewell, the signature to the oath is by Thomas Ewell, who always so wrote his name, and that was his true cognomen, his Christian name and family name by which he was known.
Thomas Winder Ewell, was a different man, of a different name, and of a different family: he always signed his name Thomas W. Ewell, never omitting the W., which was a cognomen of his family and blood. From his first receipt produced, signed in February, 1777, to the signing of his last will, through all time, and on all occasions, he uniformly signed his name Thomas W. Ewell. Not one single example has been produced, with all the zeal and diligence manifested in this case, where he himself ever signed his name Thomas Ewell; omission of the W., in no solitary instance, has been traced to him as his own act in writing his name. Is it credible that on the solemn occasion of taking and subscribing an oath of allegiance, he omitted the W. for the first and only time in his life? What impartial man can believe it?

Thomas Winder Ewell was not the man who took and subscribed that oath of allegiance; but that other living man and Captain Thomas Ewell, who always so wrote his name and never wrote it otherwise, was the officer who took and subscribed the oath of allegiance.
The board of officers in 1782, specially convened under a law for the particular business of informing the Legislature of Virginia who of the officers of the State line were entitled to half pay as promised by the State, in part composed of field officers of the first and second regiments, reported Thomas Ewell, (not Thomas Winder Ewell,) as a captain then in service, in the first regiment of the State line.
The State of Virginia, by the act for constituting that board, and requiring them to report, made their report a rule and a law, gave it an authenticity and verity, as against the State, not to be contradicted, not to be falsified by an averment that the board should have reported Thomas Winder Ewell, and not Thomas Ewell, as the officer then, (13th April, 1782,) in service in the first regiment of the State line.
Mr. Helm, acting on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of Thomas Winder Ewell, has filed a copy of a paper, which is in these words and figures:
"I do certify that Thomas W. Ewell served as a captain from the first of January, 1777, until the first of April, 1782. Given under my hand at Dumfries, 29th June, 1783. W. BRENT, Col."
"Executive Department, August 7, 1834."
"The above is a true copy of the original paper filed in this Department." (Signed) "WM. H. RICHARDSON,
"Secretary Commonwealth."
How, when, and for what purpose was that certificate of Col. Brent, (then out of office, and given for a private purpose, filed in the Secretary's office? It is now produced by Mr. Helm, for the purpose of contradicting the report of the board of officers, who sat in Richmond and closed their labors and made their report on the 13th April, 1782. As the heirs and representatives of Thomas Winder Ewell have produced that paper, they cannot discredit their own witness. It is a statement given for some individual use, by Col. Brent, a man of high bearing, at a time when the transactions to which it alludes, were fresh in his memory. Col. Brent was an officer of the second regiment of the Virginia State line, and is so reported by the board of officers.
Col. Brent does not state in what Regiment, or corps, Thomas Winder Ewell served as a Captain. Is the certificate to be taken as alluding to the Regiment of which Col. Brent had been the commanding officer when Thomas Winder Ewell performed the services as Captain? Then it would allude to the second, not to the first Virginia Regiment on State Establishment. But let that pass; the certificate of Col. Brent proves,
1st. That Thomas Winder Ewell, served as a Captain "until the first of April, 1782," therefore not in service on the 13th of April, 1782;
2d. That Capt. Thomas Winder Ewell out of service on the 13th April, 1782, whose service had terminated on the first of April, 1782, was not Capt. Thomas Ewell, reported by the board (who sat 13th April, 1782,) as then on service, as Capt. 1st Virginia Regiment, State line;
3d. If the board of Officers who sat at Richmond, on the 13th April, 1782,

had reported Thomas Winder Ewell as then in service, the report would have been false;
4th. That the receipt of Commutation for half pay by the Administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, as if he had served to the end of the war, under the decree of the court for Henry, acquiesced in by the Auditor James E. Heath without appeal, was had and done by fraud and covin, by personating Capt. Thomas Ewell who was reported to be in service by the board of officers, and not Thomas Winder Ewell.
When the certificate of Col. Brent, is examined, in which Thomas W. Ewell is mentioned, and as in service until the first of April, 1782, and without stating what corps he served in, it is evident that if it had been shown to the Court of Henrico, and an appeal therefrom taking to the Court of Appeals, no final decree could have been had for Commutation as due for the services of Thomas Winder Ewell. Mr. Helm, in his letter to Mr. Woodbury, of 15 Nov. 1834, to which Col. Brent's certificate was attached, says it was procured by Thos. Winder Ewell, and filed in the executive office, "for the purpose of proving his right to bounty land. Capt. Ewell died very soon after the date of said paper, and an allowance has never been made in his favour. The warrants issued to Capt. Thomas Ewell for 4000 acres, which seems to show that there must have been a Capt. Thomas Ewell, as well as a Capt. Thomas Winder Ewell. The will of Capt. Thos. Winder Ewell is filed in Mr. Gordon's office in the War Department. In said will he styles himself, 'Thomas Winder Ewell.'"
This certificate of Col. Brent could not procure a Land warrant; no allowance had been made in his favor as late as 15th Nov., 1834; but 4000 acres issued to Capt. Thomas Ewell. So Thomas Ewell, and Thomas Winder Ewell were different men, and Thomas Ewell, got the land warrant which issued 5th July, 1783, when Thomas Ewell and Thomas Winder Ewell were both alive and in being. Mr. Helm, was then engaged in prosecuting the Claim of Thomas Winder Ewell; and shows that Capt. Thomas Ewell, was the person who obtained the land warrant—so is Mr. Helm's letter of 15 Nov., 1834. But in his letter of 15th May, 1849, to the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Helm, holds a different language. Having obtained the Commutation, he resists the claim of Capt. Thomas Ewell, gives an incorrect statement of the result of the application made by him of the 2d May, 1834, which was made for the heirs of Capt. Thomas Ewell, and the order obtained for the heirs of Capt. Thomas Ewell; and Mr. Selden, the Register, would not sign the warrant to the heirs of Capt. Thomas Winder Ewell, as herein before explained. In this letter of 15th May, 1849, Mr. Helm, claims the land warrant issued 5th July, 1783, as having been in the possession of one of the family of Thomas Winder Ewell and insists "that there was but one Capt. Thomas Ewell, and that was Thomas W. Ewell in Col. Gibson's Regiment, and that he was transferred to Col. Dabney's Legion when it was formed." In this letter he states that Gov. Tazewell told him "he knew the Thomas Ewell they were trying to get bounty land for, even at that time 1834, he said that man lived in Princess Anne, near Norfolk;—and refers to James E. Heath, Auditor, for "a full explanation"—The disagreement between the two letters of 1834, November 15, and 1849, May 15, to different Secretaries, and so long between, Mr. Helm did not expect to be contrasted.
Mr. James E. Heath, the blood relation of Thomas W. Ewell, and referee

and coadjutor of Mr. William Helm, has come to the rescue, and filed various extracts from the public books, among which are extracts from land office, (No. 7.) One extract is of Thomas Merriweather's certificate, 4th July, 1783, that Thomas Ewell, Captain, (not Thomas W. Ewell,) is entitled to the land bounty allowed by law, and that land warrant No. 1329, for 4,000 acres, issued to Thomas Ewell on the 5th July, 1783. Another extract of same date shows an executive order for, and a land warrant issued to John Tebbs, heir of Thomas Tebbs, with a certificate signed—Thomas W. Ewell, that John Tebbs is the representative of Thomas Tebbs. From these matters, of record, (of 4th July and 5th of July, 1783,) that Thomas Ewell was certified by Merriweather, (the major of the first State regiment,) as a captain, entitled to bounty, and got his warrant; and that Thomas W. Ewell was in the offices on the same days, with the certificate of Col. Brent, dated 29th June, 1783, but could get no warrant upon that, nor get Major Merriweather to certify for Thomas W. Ewell, who certified for Mr. Tebbs. These two ingenious gentlemen—Mr. Helm, agent for the heirs of Thomas W. Ewell, and Mr. James E. Heath, the blood relation of Thomas W. Ewell, (and auditor of public accounts of Virginia, (God gave the mark!)) would have it inferred by you, and do themselves insist, that Captain Thomas Winder Ewell is no other than Thomas Ewell, and that Captain Thomas Ewell is no other than Captain Thomas Winder Ewell, and that Captain Thomas Winder Ewell got the land warrant issued on the 5th July, 1783, to Thomas Ewell. Mr. Helm has forgotten his letter of 15th November, 1834, to Secretary Woodbury, wherein he stated that Captain Thomas Winder Ewell obtained Col. Brent's certificate and filed it, for the purpose of proving his right to bounty land, "but died soon after the date of said paper, and an allowance has never been made in his favor," and mentions the land warrant issued to Captain Thomas Ewell.
It is unfortunate for Mr. Helm, that his coadjutor, Mr. Heath, has taken the trouble to prove, that Thomas Winder Ewell was actually in the Land Office of Virginia, and in the Council Chamber of Virginia, on July 4 and 5, 1783, having previously obtained Col. Brent's certificate of 29th June, 1783, to Thomas W. Ewell: And it is very unfortunate for Mr. Heath, that his coadjutor and agent for the heirs and representatives of Thomas Winder Ewell, had written to Secretary Woodbury, that Capt. Thomas Winder Ewell died very soon after the date of Col. Brent's certificate, and had not received any land bounty; that the warrant for 4,000 acres had issued to Capt. Thomas Ewell. And it is unfortunate for both Mr. Helm and Mr. Heath, that a survey and grant upon a part of that same military warrant No. 1329, issued to Thomas Ewell then alive, and not to the heirs of Thomas W. Ewell then dead.
"Murder will out." Between the conception of wicked schemes, and their ultimate consequences, Providence oftentimes interposes, addles the brains, confuses the memory, confounds the means, and perplexeth the tongues of the perpetrators, so that out of their own mouths they are convicted.
The deposition of George Dudley, (aged 65 years,) taken 18th February, 1834, before the Mayor of the Borough of Norfolk, filed in the Hustings Court of said Borough, on the 27th February, 1834, and certified by that court as credible and satisfactory to them, identifies Capt. Thomas Ewell, by his services as captain, and the time of his death in 1796, and by his children.

Taking the oath of allegiance in the beginning, the reports of the board of officers of 1782, and the deposition of Mr. Dudley, with the various other evidences before stated under the first head, which I will not repeat; notwithstanding the clouds and mysteries which have been introduced, by the ingenious manner in which, Mr. Auditor Heath, the blood relation of Thomas Winder Ewell, and Mr. Helm, the agent of the heirs and legal representative of Thomas Winder Ewell, have conducted the case of Thomas Winder Ewell, and their own defence of the fraud and covin by which the decree of the Court of Henrico was obtained and paid without appeal; by the multiplied hearsays introduced; extracts from records artfully blended and stuck together; by selecting two depositions from the files of the suit in the Court of Henrico, keeping out of view the full record; and by introducing the certificate of the County Court of Prince William, made on the 5th January, 1835, that it was proved to their satisfaction on the third day of February, 1834, (eleven months before,) "that Thomas Winder Ewell, deceased, (and not Thomas Ewell deceased, as mentioned in said order,) was a captain in the first Virginia State Regiment, and that he served until the close of the war, and died in Prince William in the year 1784,"—notwithstanding all these, not excepting the last mentioned most superlative experiment in the sublime art of alchymy, by which "Thomas Ewell, deceased," was transmuted into "Thomas Winder Ewell, deceased;" there is seen a mass of testimony in the case so clear, so convincing, so preponderating, so authentic, as to lay the foundation of a rational belief, a conscientious verdict, a discreet legal judgment, that Capt. Thomas Ewell, (and not Thomas Winder Ewell) was entitled to commutation of half pay and interest, as now demanded by his administrator, Wm. F. Purcell.
The report of the board of officers who sat in Richmond under the act of the Legislature of Virginia, passed Nov'r session 1781, (10. Henn., chap. 19, sect. 10, page 466,) has been always regarded by the constituted authorities of Virginia as authentic and veritable, as far as it states and affirms, and as a rule and authentic standard for settling and adjusting half pay and commutation of half pay.
The report was made by officers of high character, who had personal knowledge of the matters, and the best means of ascertaining and reporting accurately, and at a time when the scenes, and acts, and actors in the war were fresh in the memory of themselves and others.
In matters of such antiquity, judging of the services, rank, and identity of officers, after the lapse of three score and six years from the close of the war of the Revolution, that report of the board of officers convened for the express purpose of discriminating such officers as were and were not entitled to half pay, is the surest, the best reliance.
As against the State of Virginia, it must be considered as evidence conclusive. It was a report made under authority of law, and by her own officers. In a suit against the State of Virginia, in her own Courts, by an officer reported, to recover his half pay, or commutation, the State could not, if she would, be permitted to falsify that report, nor in a suit by the administrator of Thomas Ewell be permitted to aver that Capt. Thomas Winder Ewell and not Capt. Thomas Ewell ought to have been reported by the board.
The United States have assumed the debt of Virginia to her officers for their half pay, or commutation of half pay. And that which is good evi-
rb 00

dence against the State of Virginia, as to those debts, is good evidence against the United States.
This case, upon the petition for payment of commutation of half pay, to the administrator of Thomas Ewell, whose name is reported by that board of officers, could not bear dispute in a Court of Virginia. That report is a bond, an authentic, solemn instrument, evidencing a debt due by the State of Virginia to Thomas Ewell, and his heirs, executors and administrators. The State of Virginia could not go behind that report, require a bill of particulars and proof, as upon an open account. The State of Virginia could not in her own Courts be permitted to traverse and falsify that report, nor should the officers of the United States do it.
Although the representative of Thomas Winder Ewell has committed a fraud upon the State of Virginia, and by collusion and covin obtained a decree and payment of commutation as due to Thomas Winder Ewell, for his services, that decree is not evidence against the heirs and representatives of Capt. Thomas Ewell, who are neither parties nor privies to that decree.
Although Mr. Helm and Mr. Jas. E. Heath have now, for fear of the consequences of their collusion and fraud upon the State of Virginia, interposed themselves in this case, it must be considered as a claim and demand against the State of Virginia, with which Mr. Helm and James E. Heath have no right to intermeddle. If the suit by the administrator of Thomas Ewell against the State of Virginia, were pending in a Court of Virginia, and Mr. Helm and Mr. James E. Heath were to intermeddle, officiously, to delay and hinder, as they have done here, and to tamper with the Judge, as they have done with Commissioner Edwards, such their conduct would be an offence punishable by fine and imprisonment.
To consider this case as a controversy between the administrator of Thomas Ewell and the heirs and administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, or as between the administrator of Thomas Ewell and Wm. Helm and Jas. E. Heath, would be to make a false issue. The administrator of Thomas Ewell asks nothing against the administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell, or Wm. Helm, or James E. Heath. The State of Virginia will deal with them, and reward them according to their works. This is a case of a petition to the executive authority of the United States, by the administrator of Capt. Thomas Ewell, for payment of commutation of half pay, due by the State of Virginia, being of the class of debts which the Congress of the United States assumed to pay by the act of 5th July, 1832, and to be settled and adjusted by the accounting officers of the Treasury, as claims for which the State of Virginia "would be bound on the principles of the half pay cases "already decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals of said State."
The Commissioner, Mr. Edwards, suggests that there is no proof that Capt. Thomas Ewell served to the end of the war. In that he has committed a mistake. Capt. Thomas Ewell is reported by the board of officers, who sat in 1782, and completed their business April 13th, 1782, as a captain then in service. The legal presumption is, that he served to the end of the war, as official duty and personal interest bound him to do. He could not have resigned but with the consent of the Government, or at the expiration of the time for which the privates are or shall be enlisted to a discharge, and on giving notice in writing previously, as in case of the privates.—(Ordinance of December, 1775, 9 Henn., chap. IV, page 96 ; and ordinance of December, 1775, chap. 1, 9 Henn. page 81.)

That an officer did not resign, did not desert his post, colors and duty, are negatives, in their nature incapable of proof by the officer. That he did resign, or desert his post, colors and duty are affirmatives capable of proof, the burden of proof whereof lies upon the affirmitant. If Capt. Thomas Ewell resigned, or was cashiered, or deserted his post and duty before the end of the war, (22d April, 1783, when the Governor of Virginia disbanded the troops,) the State of Virginia had the proof. The legal presumption must stand until the contrary is proved.
The very extraordinary means used by Mr. Wm. Helm and by the Auditor James E. Heath, in this case, with intent to becloud, baffle, and defeat the just claim of Wm. F. Purcell, the administrator with the will annexed of Thomas Ewell, thereby to cover their fraud and covin in the case of the administrator of Thomas Winder Ewell against the State of Virginia, have imposed on me, as the attorney and counsellor at law of Mr. Purcell, the duty to make this detailed statement and argument. I have performed my duty to the best of my ability; the Secretary of the Interior, upon the appeal from the decision of Commissioner Edwards, will perform his; and I do not doubt that the case will receive a full and fair examination by the Secretary, weighing the evidence by legal rules, and giving a sound and just resolution according to law and according to truth.
Truth is mighty and will prevail.
All which is most respectfully submitted.
GEO. M. BIBB, For WM. F. PURCELL, Adm'r.
WASHINGTON, August 11, 1849.
WM. & J. C. GREER, Printers.

Hon. O. H. Browning, Secretary of the Interior Department.
Sir:
In addition to the foregoing unanswerable argument, in the case, by the great jurist, Hon. Geo. M. Bibb, there are three important depositions since filed in the cause now before you, to-wit:
First. The Rev. Jesse Ewell Mearns who was Administrator with the will annexed of Thomas Windes Ewell, and was also one of the heirs of said Thomas Windes Ewell, who swears that he has examined the oath of allegiance at the State Department, taken by Capt. Thomas Ewell, descriptive of himself and rank as a Captain, taken before Gen. Mullenburg in 1778, without which he could not have been ad-

officer, and it is not in the handwriting of Thomas Windes Ewell, his Ancestor, thereby giving testimony against his own interest.
Second. Bertrand Ewell Hays another heir, testimony is to the same effect.
Third and lastly. The deposition of the late Col. James L. Edwards, for many years Commissioner of Pensions, given within the last two years swears that at one time he was in favor of the claim of Thomas Windes Ewell, and his opinion was much influenced by James Ewell Heath, then Auditor of Virginia, and a relation, of which he afterwards learned, of Thomas Windes Ewell. Since that time, however, after a most thorough investigation and new facts he was satisfied that Capt. Thomas Ewell was the true man and not Thomas Windes Ewell.
Your Obedient Servt. Wm F. Powell Administrator

Report in the case of M. Smith Comm. of Half Pay 3 d Sec. Act 5 th July 1832. Decr 3 d 1834. W. H. R.
Ref. File No. 14.052

Department of the Interior, Pension Office, December 3 rd 1864.
The claim of William F. Purcell, administrator with the will annexed, of Thomas Ewell, for commutation of half pay and interest.
Act 5 th July, 1832, the 3 rd Section thereof.
The proofs filed in support of this claim, show the claimant to be the only appointed and qualified administrator, appointed with the will annexed, of Thomas Ewell, that as such Administrator, he was allowed on the 28 th of April, 1848, by the Commissioner of Pensions, with the approval of the Secretary of War, the half pay due Thomas Ewell, Amounting to $3026. 36 , being half pay from April, 22, 1833, when the Governor of Virginia dissolved the State Troops, to January, 1 st 1890, when the testator died.
It appears by certain memoranda and files in this Office that, soon after the allowance of half pay, this claim was filed. The claim appears to have been examined repeatedly during the administration of several Commissioners of Pensions and its allowance as repeatedly denied. The reasons for its disallowance do not specifically appear as I am unable to find the special correspondence relating thereto, or the original papers submitted in support of the claim; but, from my knowledge of this class of claims, I have no hesitation in saying, that the uniform ruling of

this Department from 1850 to November 22 d 1861, was to the effect that, claims of this character were not embraced in the provisions of the Act of 5 th July, 1832. I think I may safely assert that, as a general rule, Claims for commutation of half pay, with interest, within the last mentioned period were not examined upon their merits. This Office contented itself with the rejection of such claims, based upon the then existing rulings, as to the law, supposed to have reference thereto.
By reference to the decision of Hon. Caleb B. Smith, late Secretary of the Interior, on the 22 d of November 1861, in the matter of the application of Charles Fierro's representation for commutation of half pay with interest, I find the Secretary, reverses the long established ruling in relation to matter of this character and holds distinctly that, cases of the character now in issue, were embraced by the 3 d Section of said Act. Sect y Smith, seems to have no doubt upon the question and expresses himself with such distinctness that, it ill becomes me to call in question the correctness of his decision. Acting upon the presumption that the construction given to said Act by the late Secretary is to stand as the law of the case, I proceed to an examination of the merits of the claim.
On the 31 st of July, 1872, the Assem ly of Virginia, authorized several Regiments to be raised for State defence. Under this authority, the 1 st Regiment, commanded by Col. Gibson, was raised. it consists each Captain's Company of sixty eight men and its commission was to issue until the Company was

Completed and priority of completing the Company, fixing the rank and precedence and seniority of the Captains in their respective Regiments. Upon an examination of the original muster and pay rolls, relating to the service of Col. Gil. C. Ewell's Regiment of the Virginia State Line, it appears that Thomas Ewell, raised a company, in the latter part of 1876, and on the 31 st of January, 1877, was duly Commissioned a Captain. The company appears to have been in service under his command during the years 1877, 78, 79 & into 80. After 1880, I am unable to find rolls of this organization. Upon the company roll, for the several months during the above period the name of Thomas Ewell and Thomas W. Ewell, respectively appear. At one place the roll will be headed Captain Thomas Ewell's company, at another Captain Thomas W. Ewell's company.
(By an Act of the General Assembly of Virginia, dated 24 th January, 1877, it appears that a Warrant was issued to one Thomas Blackburn Esq. for the use of Thomas Ewell, for $149.50 on account for recruiting expenses (as bounty of a Captain's quota of regulars for service of the State, 1 st Battalion.)
In the Department of State, is filed the Oath of Allegiance, taken and subscribed by Thomas Ewell, at Camp, May 12 th 1878, before Genl. Muhlenburg, as Captain in the 1 st Virginia State Regiment. This Oath was taken in the form and manner prescribed by resolution of Congress of 3 rd February, 1878, which also resolved that any Officer who shall continue or presume to exercise any Commission without taking

The Cash prescribed, shall be Cashiered and forfeit two months pay and be incapable of serving in the Army of the United States.
By the Division Orders of the 1 st of March, 1879, Captain Thomas Ewell, is named for Police with others, for Adjutant of the Pay, Piquet guard &c.
On the 8 th day of February 1882, a Certificate for $360, issued to Thomas Ewell, a Captain of Infantry in the Virginia State Line for arrears pay, due to himself.
It also appears that,
On the 9 th day of July, 1883, a Certificate issued to Thomas Ewell, as a Captain of Infantry for $293.15 balance due of pay, according to act of Assembly of November Session 1881, relative to himself.
It appears from a Report of a Board of Officers who met at Richmond, in April and July, 1882, to determine what Officers were entitled to Half Pay, that Thomas Ewell, was reported Captain then in Service, in the 1 st Virginia State Regiment.
The Executive Council of Va. July 1883, allowed him to Thomas Ewell, as Captain, as late bounty, and on the 5 th of July 1883, the Register of the Land Office, issued Sales Warrant No. 1329, for 4000, acres to Thomas Ewell, as Captain.
The evidence further shows that a Survey was made March 1887, for Thomas Ewell, for 2000 acres part of Military Warrant No. 1329, and the Grant was dated July 10 1893, upon said Survey.

to Thomas Ewell.
It appears also in evidence that, at a Court held in Norfolk, in 1834, the fact was found that Thomas Ewell, of Prince Anne Co. Virginia, served as a Captain in the Virginia State Line during the war, that he died January, 1 st 1796, leaving three sons, named respectively James, Thomas and John Ewell, as heirs at law.
The evidence further shows that, at a Court of Quarterly Sessions held in Prince Anne Co. Va. March, 2 d 1835, the fact was found that James, Thomas and John Ewell were the sons and heirs at law of Thomas Ewell, deceased, of said Co. who served as a Captain in the Virginia State Line during the war of the Revolution.
A certified copy of the Will of Thomas Ewell, of Prince Anne Co. Va. under date of 1 st January 1789, has been filed, together with evidence that it was entered of record February, 1 st 1796, in which it appears, the testator, recognized James, Thomas and John Ewell, as his sons and heirs at law.
The deposition of Church in G. B. G. in the Office, shows that, to him Thomas Ewell, as a Captain in the 1 st Virginia of the Va. State Line.
It appears also from a statement made by Chief Justice John Marshall, that he was acquainted with Thomas Ewell, knew him in service, never heard he resigned, believes and understands he served to the close of the war, he, Marshall, served until 1781.

By the affidavit of George Dudley, it is shown that, Thomas Ewell, served as a Captain in the Va. State Line during the War, that Ewell, died in 1796, in Prince William Co. Va. and left three sons, names James, Thomas and John.
From this weight of the proof, in the case there cannot be any doubt as to the service performed, its character or duration. The only question presented by the evidence, raising the least doubt, arises from the entries upon the muster and pay rolls of the names of Thomas Ewell and Thomas W. Ewell relates exclusively to identity.
There is unquestionable evidence in this Office that, there was a Thomas W. Ewell, who lived and died in Prince William Co. Va. that, on the 11 th day of February, 1777, he had raised twenty nine recruits. That on the 27 th of March following he had raised fifty recruits for the State Service.
It also appears, that, Thomas W. Ewell, made a Will May, 26 th 1780, which was entered of Probate the 2 nd of March, 1781, immediately after his decease, in Prince William Co. Va.
It further appears that, the heirs of Thomas W. Ewell, claimed bounty of the State of Va. for the services of Thomas W. as a Captain in the Va. State Line, which was refused by the Register of the Land Office.
The evidence also shows that, the heirs of Thomas W. recovered a judgment against the State of Virginia, in 1834, for half pay. This case was not appealed to the Court of Appeals, as was the

practice in similar cases.
It is by act of the Assembly of Va. that the recruiting District in which Companies were to be raised for State Service, in the year 1776 & 7 embraced the Counties of Prince William and Prince William in One and the same District.
From this statement of the fact, in the case, does it satisfactorily appear that Nathan Cowell, was a Captain in the 1 st Regiment of the 1 st State Line, commanded by Col. Gibson? and if so, did he serve to the close of the war, as an Officer? If he was such Officer and did so serve, under the decision of the Secretary of the Interior of Nov. 22 d , 1861 the claim must be allowed.
The evidence shows conclusively that Nathan Cowell, raised a company in the latter part of 1776, and was commissioned as Captain in the 1 st Regiment of the 1 st State Line, commanded by Col. Gibson, on the 31 st of January 1777. That, on the 24 th of January 77, the Council Chamber issued for his use a warrant for $179. 10. for recruiting expenses & bounty of a Captain's quota. That May 12 th 1778, he took and subscribed his oath of Allegiance. That Nov. 3 rd 1779, he was sworn a Adjutant of the day, that July 28 th 1782, a Certificate for $360. was issued and delivered to him as Captain of Infantry as a reward for services, that he was from October to half pay as Captain, then in service in 1 st & 2 d Regiments of State Line, in April and July 1782, by a board of Officers who met for the purpose of determining who were so entitled, that the Board was composed in part, of Col. Mahoney, Col. Brent, Lt. Col. Allison and Maj. Merriweather, Officers of the 1 st and 2 d 1 st State Line Regiments. That July 9 th 1783, there was delivered to him a Certificate for $298. 8. 3. as balance of pay, that the Board of Council of Va. allowed his claim for long bounty.

as Capt. 10th Subsequent say the Register of the same Office issued Same Warrant No. 1329. for $4000. to him, that, in 1847 a Summ was drawn for him for 2000. acres, being part of the above Sum Warrant, and that the Grand Jury in 1848 was drawn to him in 1848. That the Comte of Norfolk. and Princess Anne be found to be entitled in 34. & 35. That he was a Captain in the 2 d State Line and died in 1896. Learning there was a Sum Warrant Thomas E. Ewing, that he will recognize James Mason and be as his son and heir at law. That Church's Gable, an Officer in the 1 st 2 d State Line, Chief Justice Marshall and Geo. Mason, State Line was a Captain in the 2 d State Line, and the last line thinks he lived to the end of the War and that in 1848, his administrator was allowed and did receive his half pay for life.
There can be no doubt that the Service alleged to have been rendered by Thomas E. Ewing as an Officer was performed and that the Officer was in Service to the close of the War from the fact that the State of Va. issued to him Sum Warrant which she made out as usual to be so drawn. This fact is further established by the Report of the Board of Officers who sat in 1848. to determine the very question, and by the statements of Chief Justice Marshall and of Geo. Mason, and by the testimony of said Officer in 1848, upon the application of his administrator for half pay.
Was Thomas Ewing the Officer, who served as aforesaid?
That there was a Thomas Ewing and a Thomas H. Ewing who lived and died contemporaneously with each other in different counties, counties of Meigs Co., but that Thomas H. was the Officer to whom the evidence relates. It is a proposition too incredible for belief. Nearly the entire evidence establishes

the fact that the parties were acting in an official character. It was their duty to know who was commissioned as Captain, what was the character of his Service, its duration etc. With the information they had to be amply satisfied. Thomas Cunnell, 1st Thomas W. is recognized throughout as the Commissioned Officer, as the Captain, to whom the allowances were made by the Com'ty Owes it, by the findings of the Board of Officers, by the Virginia A. Board Officers, by the Division Orders, by the Survey by the Gen'l, by the Bill of Allowances, by the findings of the Courts, and by the Officers etc.
The Warrant for 2000 acres issued to Thomas Cunnell in the life time of Thomas W. it was carried into Survey in 91 and into grant in 93 to Thomas Cunnell the King. Thomas W. at the time of the Survey and Grant has been dead. Several years having elapsed in the early part of 1844 of the War. In October 1844 the Survey Court took the same in the terms of the Warrant, neither was in the Grant after the Survey but since then has been in the terms of the Grant. The Survey and Grant were made in the name of Thomas Cunnell, thus preserving the identity of the subject.
Again, this is evident that some time after Thomas Cunnell had raised his Company, but has been stationed as a Captain in 1844 and 1845. After the Regiment has been formed Thomas W. was raising recruits. This fact furnishes evidence that the Company commanded by Thomas Cunnell is the same as that of the State's and not have been commanded by Thomas W. Cunnell.
The list of Allegia was signed by Thomas Cunnell in Camp before

Genl. Mehlburg would seem to set at rest any doubt as to the personal identity of the parties who signed to the Oath of Allegiance. Somewhat peculiar, will be found in some of the original pay rolls. The name of Thomas W. differs materially from the name writing to said Oath, it is not uniform and it is fair to presume was subscribed by different hands at different times. In this connection I may remark that there is no evidence in the Department of State or in the Office that Thomas W. Cress, took an Oath of Allegiance. An Oath of Allegiance in the manner and form as devised by Congress was a solemn act, in effect, an identification of the person taking it by his true name and rank and commission. No Officer could suppress a part of his name without violating a part of his oath. Such a Subversive Officer, as the evidence in the case exhibits, would not, if he were. In the Oath of Allegiance the name of Thomas Cress appears and Thomas Cress, subscribed his name thereto. The oath was administered by Genl. Mehlburg with whom Thomas Cress, as Captain of a Company in the First Va. State Regiment has long been associated. It does not appear that Thomas W. Cress, in any instance signed his name without using the W. to distinguish himself and family. The W. in his name stands for William as appears from some correspondence within the scope of the Officer, it personal as well as a public fact his blood and life.
Some evidence to the effect that the proper explanation of the discrepancy in name which the rolls establish, is this. Some portion of the Company which Thomas Cress, commanded was unconstitutionally raised in Prince William Co. in his

recruiting district and where Sherman W. resides, and it is not improbable that at different times the Clerk of the roll, the officer who was authorized to make out such rolls, was from Prince William Co. and consequently wrote the name of Sherman W. with whom the presumption is he was well acquainted.
In view of all the facts in the case, after a patient, careful and laborious investigation, I am constrained to believe that Sherman Powell, of Prince of Henry Co. Va. was a Captain in the First Va. State Regiment commanded by Col. Gibson, that he drew to the close of the war of the rebellion, was entitled to half pay for life, that William F. Powell, the claimant in this case, as the Rep- resentation of said Thomas Powell, by virtue of his official bond as Administrator is entitled to commutation of half- pay and interest from the 22 d of April 1783 to the present time, less the amount of the half pay allowed April 28 th 1865, which will be issued on the transfer of the bond to him.
Before a Certificate issues the Administrator shall enter into an official bond and security in the sum of $15,000.
S. C. W. M.

Feb. 6, 1863.
Third Audit to Comt. of Pensions

Treasury Department,
Third Auditor's Office
February 6 th 1863.
Sir:
Enclosed please find letter of W. F. Purcell, Esq to this office requesting copies of the papers on which a half pay claim of Thomas Owell, of Virginia troops, was allowed and paid to him as administrator in 1848 and which he says are required for the use of your office. I have informed Mr Purcell that if information from the records in this case is desired by you, and you request the same, it will be furnished on your application. I think it proper in such cases not to furnish copies of the records unless on application from your office.
I am Sir, Very respectfully,
Your Ob t Servant
R. J. Summers
Auditor
Hon: J. H. Barrett. Com t of Pensions

16 th Sept. 1776. 100 acs. bounty, large to Off. 15 th Mar. 1778. Off. to receive 7 yrs. half pay, also 80$ to pri. at end of war. 24 th Nov. 1778. Off. dis. One year full pay & Rec. to States to pro. for them. 20 th May. 1779. Act. Off. to be continued En. to the 7 th full pay pro. by Res. of 24 th Nov. 1778. 24 th Aug. 1780. 7 th half pay pro. to wid. & orphans of sol. 3 rd Oct. 1780. Re Organ. Army take effect 1 st Jan. 81. Off. who become dis. En. 7 th yrs. half pay & Grants pro. by Res. of 16 th Sept. 1776. 21 st Oct. 1780. Off. who Con. En. of war. pro. half pay for life. 1782 & 3 Peh. to Congress to be allowed full pay for term of 7 th or even in gap in length 22 nd March. 1783. fine 7 th full pay pro. or dec. an in. at 6 pr. ct. in lieu of 1/2 pay to be optional with lines of States & not of Off. in divisions. May. Session 1779. Va. pro. half pay for life to Off. & dis. at reduc. who shall remain if reg. 3 rd Dec. Act 5 th July. 1832. Judge Taney. also Woodbury. & Butts. Atty Genl. Nelson. 1779. May Sess. Va. assembly. see Hen. 10 th Vol. p. 25. Va. pro. half pay for life.  18 th March. 1784 Dec of Resign n of Vt. West. is conditioned that the U.S. shall rein. Va. for exp. in reducing British posts at Kaskaskia, St. Vincents &c; by Clark, & the Detached, who are pro. 1/2 pay.  Jan. 22 nd 32 1 st Sep. 22 nd : Cong. pro. S. Barbours Ref. that Va. should be rein. what she has paid pro. to pay judgts. ob. against her. or hereafter rendered & pro. to pay claims not pro. to judgts. or when suits not com. 5 th July. 32. Act. paper upon said Res. &c. Half pay & Com d are not gratuities or pen. but ex debito justitiae under the terms of positive Contract. 1777. Oct. 1 st  State Va. Dept. was transferred to Com d Ex. to take place of 9 th Capt. at Farmington. see Hunning 9 th Vol. p. 337. Pa. Pub. pro. Half pay to Off. of this Dept. 1775. July. Ordinance of Convention. 1 st & 2 nd State Regts. were raised. V a Genl. Com d : 1/2 pay claim, see 10 th Vol. of Rep t 3 rd Dec. act 32. an. pay of claim on pro. of 1/2 pay ann. 1779. Dec. 11. Va. rel. to Com d : see Hunning 13. vol. p. 131. Atty. Genl. pro. on allow. to this act.

Commutation premium to those only who served to the close of the war.
1779. May. Va. prem. half pay for life to those who served on off. thenceforward for life.
1783. March. 22. Congress Res. to grant 5 Yrs. full pay in lieu of half pay for life.
1834. Feb 25 Secty. Tancy decided Act 32 did not embrace Com n Claims.
1848. Secty. Marcy decided against these claims.
1849. Mch. 27. Atty. Genl. Johnson decided in favor of these claims.
1850. Sept. 16. Congress H. Com. Rep. Bill prohibit d such adjustments. Sen. did pass
1850. June. 13 th Secty. directed suspension of action for such cases until Action of Com. wa. known Com. due to those only who served to the close of the war. Is there proof, Ewell so served. Does not the pay ment of Half pay discharge Govt. liability to pay Com n ?
Act of July, 5, 32. 3 d sec. relates. directly to half pay. Not Com n .
Act of July, 5 th 32. wa. passed to protect Va. by her promises in 79. of half pay.
The Ewell wa. he not from Va. since the battle of Appomattox and the prostration of the South. The Ewell, as P. 102, is in the list of those who were not paroled, and therefore not entitled to half pay. What little Ewell of Maryland was in the war. Where is the original paper in this case or any correspondence -
33 The hereafter the H. Rep. represent the ground of the decision. Their bill, if passed would cut off all claims for the 40 days pay etc. and to then the Com n of the P. 102. Mch. 28 th -

Washington, D.C.
November 25 th 1864.
Dr. Wab.
Yours of the 25 th inst. in reference. Have since heard

April, 25 th 1863. Parole to Com. of Par.
At Appomattox. 373 rd Va. Infct.

St. Bern. Mt. 373: 62 Sheet.
April 25/823. Inverness

April 25 th 1863
To The Hon. Commissioners of Pensions
Sir,
Administrator
I herewith enclose you my authority as to ask that the case of Captain Thos Evell be examined and acted on under the Act of Congress of the 5 th of July 1832. Which you sometime previously requested me to do, although the Records in your Department showed that I had been recognised as the legal Representative of said Captain Thomas Evell of the Virginia state line in the War of the Revolution, and had received for money in that capacity at Treasury. Though those facts probably were not brought to your view. I also send you as you requested, the document when the document line, to wit: Baltimore City

in a loyal State in this Union In support of the above Claim under said Act of Congress of the 5 July 1832 is the Declaration under Oath of John Powell on file in your Department made about the year of 1831 who served under Captain Thomas Cull during the Whole War & the evidence in file in the Third Auditor's Office on which the original Claim was allowed which you will please call for officially, the evidence last referred to, is admitted by the Clerks in your office as have been lost there, and in my asking your Honor to call for the evidence at the said Third Auditor's Office

is I think not unreasonable
In Conclusion I have the Honor to subscribe My serv you at St.
Am H Purcell
The above claim is for five years full pay, with interest deducting therefor the sum paid at the Treasury in 1848 for half pay. This is in accord- ance with the decision of Secretary Smith in the case of Capt. Chas. H. Allen in 1862, & all similar cases under previous Secretaries
Am H Purcell Administrator of Thos. Purcell

OF THE REVOLUTION JANUARY 10 1776
Cert. of Refig. with note Pursue is ad: of the Small

District of Columbia
Washington County, to wit;
I Z.C. Robbins, Register of Wills for said County and District of Columbia, do hereby certify that it appears from the proper Record now in my possession that W m F Purcell Esq was duly appointed and gave Bond with approved security as administrator de bonis non with the will annexed on the Estate of Thomas Ewell, by the former Judge of the Orphans Court of said County and District, and that his power as such stands unrevoked.
Given under my hand and seal this 14 th day of February A.D 1863
Z.C. Robbins Register of Wills

W. J. Farnell.
Feb. 11. 1863.
Capt. Thos. Emory.

Washington City 11. July 63
Dear Sir
I have the Honor to beg application for a balance due me as the administrator with the will annexed of Captain Thomas E. Well under the act of Congress of the 5 July 1832 & other acts The official papers were in your Department as will be seen by the official correspondence but I have been informed by Mr. Drey and Whiting that after diligent search they have been lost - you will therefore be pleas- ed to cause a copy of all the official papers from the proper Department at your earliest convenience
Respectfully Yours etc H. A. Small

✓ Mr. F. Pencil June 5. 1865.
Enclose Affidavit of Jas. L. Edwards, formerly Commissioner of Pensions and other papers respect- ing the case of Thomas Lord and with a re- examination.
Dept. Interior Aug. 25. 1865.
These papers, together with the letter of Major Powell of 19 Jan'y 1865 are respectfully re- ferred to the Commissioning Pen- sions for a re-examination the case on its merits in view of the additional evidence that has been filed and for a report of his con- clusions in the premises before final action. By order of the Secy of the Interior. Chas. Whiting Acty. Clerk

Department of the Interior.
Washington D. C. Jan 5, 1865
Hon. Sir
I herewith enclose the papers in support of the claim of Captain Thomas Ewell which is before you with the Deposition of Col James L. Edwards late Commissioner of Pensions which I some time since promised to do. You will confer a favor by causing the claim to be examined at your earliest convenience.
With great respect I have the Honor to be your Obedt Servt
H. M. [Signature]

Mr. Boynton.
A letter of the import indicated within may be addressed to Judge Purcell.
A. H. B.
8/4/54 - Mr. Purcell not at home a few days later

Sept 5-62 - legal Constitution into "Established" of Section 7th Attorney -
A letter of the informal - indicated with my personal to my first President. JHS.
Mr. Bryan

Half Pay Claim. - Adm'r of Thos. Cavell.
Pension Office, December 9, 1864,
Any argument which the claimant or his attorneys may submit (in writing), on the following points, will be duly considered before further action is taken  deciding on this claim:
1. The case has already been decided by the Office, in accordance with the ruling of the Department at the time of such decision. Can it be reopened by the Commissioner of Pensions?
2. If so, shall the single precedent of the Kier case, outweigh the uniform precedents for many years previous, against the allowance of this claim?
3. Is not this claim positively barred by the act approved April 2, 1862 (U. S. Statutes at large, Chap. 53 - page 376, 2 d Sess. 37 th Congress), as construed by Attorney General Bates?
J. H. B.
Opinion of Sept. 5 '62. Ref. to Sec. 12.

The United States, Dr.
To George Triplett, 1 st Lieutenant in the 1 st State Regiment in the Virginia Line (commanded by Colonel George Gibson) in the Revolutionary War.
That his half pay from 6 February 1781 [date after reduction of State Regiments to 2 nd March 1781] (after which time he received full pay from 15 May 1781) in pursuance of the third section of an act of Congress "to provide for liquidating and paying certain claims of the State of Virginia," approved 5 th July, 1832, being 45-years 25 days at £48. - Virginia currency, equal to $160 - per annum, amounting to Dollars
7210 96
Deduct amount paid him as commutation under an Act of the Virginia Legislature of 18 January 1827 as per Manuscript List received from Auditor Heath, and page 53 & 62 of the Report of the Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States
1800 Dollars . . . . . 5,410 96
Note. The Name of George Triplett is not on the Printed Lists of Pending Claims "or" Claims not prosecuted "received from Mr Heath. But is on the Manuscript List received from him as a "Supernumerary first Lieutenant at £48 p Annum "as George Triplet [only one t in the name]
Auditor's Office 28 th Sept r 1832
W m Parker
Compt r 's Office Sept r 28 th 1832 Exch.
W m Anderson
Registrar's Office Jan: 30 th 1840
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy from the originals now on file in this Office
W m Smith Registrar

Referred to the accounting officers for settlement, there being sufficient evidence of identity in this Office, as Lieut. Triplett receives the benefit of the act of 15 th May 1838. The half pay is to be allowed only to the 3 rd of March 1836, when Lieut. Triplett began to receive pay under the act above mentioned
A. Dickens
Treasury Dept. Sept. 27 1832

Ex: on their Ancts: Off, Not Certified in his Report. Consisting of Affidavits of Church Lists Cert: of John Marshall. R.C.

The following appears among the papers on file in the Third Auditor's Office. At this time examined, the papers are made this Copy. Nov: 13 th 1815. S. C. Blyton.
To His Excellency } In the printed list No. 2. accompanying Gov. Sazrwell } my report to the Gov. which was communicated to the last Legislature and may be found in the journals of that Body. I say of Thomas Ewell. He was Captain in January 1777. In 1782 he was reported entitled to half pay and there in service. He is entitled to pay for the War. The Council journals and the report of the Board of Officers which sat in Richmond in Feb. and April 1782, prove these facts. If Your Excellency should allow Bounty due, it ought to be allowed, for a service as Captain in the State Line from January 1777, to the end of the War. John H. Smith, Commissioner etc. May 2. 1834.
Only copies from papers on file in the Third Auditor's Office.
"Churchill Gibbs, of the County of Madison, in the State of Virginia, one of the surviving Officers of Gibson's Regiment of the Revolutionary Army, do hereby certify, that I became acquainted with Thomas Ewell, an Officer in said Regiment in May 1777, that he joined the Regiment at that time, having as I understood raised a Company of men, and was at the time I think a Captain. I think it possible he was appointed a

Statement of Smith as Com d of B. in 1832.
5

Captain in the latter part of 1776 or early part of 1777, & having raised his quota of - joined the Regiment in May 1777, as before stated. He marched to the North & returned to Virginia in January 1780. In May 1780, we met in Williamsburg. I presume he was considered a Supernumerary Officer to the end of the War. Sworn to April 2 d 1834."
"I was very well acquainted with Captain Thomas Ewell, during the war of our Revolution. I became acquainted with him soon after his Regiment, which was, I believe, the 1 st or 2 d in the State Line, marched to the North. He must have entered the service when the Regiment was first raised. I saw him frequently and never heard, that he resigned. I left the Army myself in 1781, but have understood & believe, that Captain Ewell, continued in the service.
J. Marshall. July. 21 st 1834.
To W. Nelson. Esq."
"Evidence filed in support of Bounty Law Claim at Richmond, in 1834. Ordered that a Warrant issue to Thomas Ewell, if one has not issued before."

Norfolk Borough
At a Hastings Court Continued and held the 27 th day of February 1834. The Court doth certify that it has been made appear to the Court by the affidavit of George Dudley now filed, that Captain Thomas Ewell dec d served as a Captain in the Virginia State Line during the War of the Revolution - that he died in the beginning of the year 1796, leaving three sons, to wit James Ewell Thomas Ewell, and John Ewell his heirs at law - that all of them are now dead, leaving the following persons to wit - Mary Mills, Thomas Mills, Susan Mills, Hillary Ewell and Sarah Greenwood their heirs at law who are also the heirs at law of the aforesaid Captain Thomas Ewell deceased.
I John Williams Clerk of the Hastings Court of the Borough of Norfolk in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy from the record of the said Court
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the said Court this Eighth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty four and of the Commonwealth the fifty ninth
John Williams
C. C.

Norfolk Borough Court
This day personally came before me Miles King Mayor of the Borough aforesaid, George Dudley aged 65 years and made oath that he was personally well acquainted with Captain Thomas Ewell dec d that he served as a Captain in the state line of Virginia during the War of the Revolution - that he died in the beginning of the year 1796 leaving three sons vizt. James Ewell, Thomas Ewell and John Ewell his heirs at law - that all of them are now deceased leaving the following persons vizt. Mary Mills, Thomas Mills, Susan Mills, Hillary Ewell and Sarah Greenwood their heirs at law who are also the heirs at law of the aforesaid Captain Thomas Ewell deceased. Given under my hand and seal this 18 th day of February Eighteen hundred & thirty four
M. King Mayor (Seal)
State of Virginia City of Norfolk Court, I John Williams Clerk of the Hastings Court of the City of Norfolk, aforesaid to the Borough of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of the affidavit of George Dudley on file in my office - and

was filed in the said Court, and subscribed my name this first day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty seven and of the commonwealth the seventy second. Jno. Williams Clerk
I certify that the foregoing six sheets are truly copied from Vouchers in the case of the late Thomas E. Well on the files of this Office
September 18 th 1864
E. Sells
Auditor
Treasury Department
Third Auditor's Office

5/2 -
=
Mar 22 d 44
Mr. [unclear]
The Rev. Mr. [unclear]
taking up to the [unclear] of The World's [unclear] [unclear] New Bedford,
John [unclear]
The Honorable Commodore [unclear] of Penn's Line
To
Jan. 11.

Ans. Feb. 18/58 See Rev Book
Lot April 19/58 Rev. Dr. Book
Interior Department,
Pension Office, Official Business.

Feb. 30
Hon. M. Thomas to the Pres.
about Miss. Wright
Dr. H. Purcell Present —

On Re-
Capt Thomas Ewell
Petition of Wm To Russell attorn. de 2000000000.

Washington D.C. Oct. 12 th 1867.
Hon. C. H. Browning Secy. of the Interior - Sir
Your Petitioner William F. Purcell, Admr. de bonis non , of capt. Thomas Ewell, of the war of the Revolution, respectfully represents, That by a misapprehension of the laws, by the head of your Dept. on the 4 th Jany. 1866, that the heirs of said Ewell, who was a gallant officer in said war, were deprived of their just rights, who served his country faithfully according to contract & poured out his blood in defense of the same; & but for him & his brave associates who spilled their lives in that trying struggle we should never have had a Treasury of the United States. The services of this gallant officer are proven by record evidence of the highest grade & in addition to the record evidence, it is also proven by John Marshall C. S. of the S. C. of the United States, who was a brother officer & served with him to the end of the war in the 1 st Va. Regt. comd d . by Col. Gen. Gibson. This officer & his associates who served to the end of said war in the State line were promised by the State of Va. five years full pay with Interest, commonly called "Commutation pay", in lieu of half pay for life. On the 5 th July 1832 Congress passed an act assuming all that Virginia was found for, & could be made to pay on account of those claims. Soon after the

passage of said act, the Govt. entertained great doubts as to whether commutation claims were embraced in said act, & on the 9 th Feby. 1833 the second session of said Congress, a declaratory resolution was passed by the H. of Representatives, that Commutation was embraced in said act of July 5 th 1832; And on the 3 rd March 1835, a law was passed expressly providing for payment of deficiency of commutation to Va. State line Officers; and on the 12. Aug. 1848, in the Appropriation Bill $1000.— was appropriated to reimburse Virginia on account of her payments for said claims for Commutation &c. This was manifestly done in consideration that Virginia had ceded to the Government of the U.S. the whole western country, which had been conquered by Genl. Geo. Rogers Clarke. & other distinguished Officers of said State line by which at least (9) states were brought into the Union; & millions on millions of dollars, into the Treasury of the U.S., by the sale of the Public lands from said states. On the 27 th March 1849, a question was brought before the then Secy. of the Int. Fr., the learned & distinguished jurist & statesman, Hon. Thomas Ewing of Ohio being the case of Dr. John M. Galt as to the propriety of giving commutation with interest, after the Government having already allowed half pay, which, of course, was to be

deducted from the commutation allowed by the several acts referred to. This question was referred to the then Atty. Genl., whose ability as a lawyer is of world-wide celebrity, Hon. Beverly Johnson of Md. Both these eminent jurists concurred in the opinion that the Government was legally & in good faith-bound, under these several acts of Congress to pay to this meritorious officer, (Vide. Atty. Genl. decision of above date) & all others of the Va. State line, the commutation demanded. In fact said commutation was paid to Galt & all other officers in said service under said decision excepting Capt. Thomas Ewell whom I represent in this petition, & he was ordered to be paid, & in fact a part of the amount was paid, but was afterwards suspended on a question of identity by the commissioner of Pensions, Col. Jas. L. Edwards, as to whether Thomas Winder Ewell & Thomas Ewell were one & the same person. The late Secy. of the Inter. Hon. Jas. Harland ordered the case to be reopened & examined on its true merits, when the facts relative to the question of identity were presented to him. The law in the case being conceded, the question of identity, being a question purely of fact, alone remained to be decided. The deposition of the Comr. of Pensions above referred to, who

had decided adversely to the claim, was taken, who stated, in order to relieve his conscience after a most thorough examination of the records in the case that great injustice was done to the heirs of Capt. Ewell by that decision, & that Capt. Thomas Ewell was the man who served to the end of the war & that the case of Thomas Winder Ewell was a fraud upon the Government. The oath of  descriptive of interest & rank Allegiance taken, by Capt. Thomas Ewell was sworn at the State Dept. by a man admitted. This deposition & other evidence induced the Pres- -ident to be commissioner of Pensions under said order of reference by vice exec. Haslance to make a strong report in favor of the payment of said claim, which upon its return to the War Dept. & given to Congress, after which it was expected that, after said report, the claim would be ordered to be paid immediately by the House of Reps. of Ind. & your petitioner cannot but be expressed great surprise that such an order was not made.
The surprise was heightened by the receipt of a letter from the Dept. dated Jan'y. 4 1866, before referred to, in a similar manner to the case, that under the act July 5 1832, the claim was rejected, referring to all other subsequent legis- lation, when in fact your petitioner, as before

States, did not rely alone on the act referred to, but on subsequent acts which are her in cited, & of which no mention is made in said letter, but seem to have been entirely overlooked in the investigation of this, to me, very clear case. Immediately after the receipt of the letter of resignation and request for my resignation, did a petition asking for a review of that decision, upon the grounds heretofore stated; & being prepared for Mr. Whiting that the loss of pay of the extra was made the occasion of a review of his and said petition was reviewed. It was then accompanied by another request along the date. The above being read to a petition was received - at least to me it did not respond to me, but I always received a response made the decision. A new petition was at- tempted to be filed on July 1st, 1881, - the original said petition was reviewed & I told that the said no further consideration in the trial of the case had offered the letter of resignation, but he said some other reason - I was not sure of the reason. The case will be referred to the proper authorities for a decision. I am, Sir, in the meantime, resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned and resigned

all this matter is present being the only one said. (Reference is also here made to the confir- mation of said decision by the Board of Directors of the said Company on the 10th day of March, 1882, and inasmuch as that the said decree of the said Court at the said time, two of the said members were not at a regular meeting of the said Company, and the said decree of the said Court in an open house. The said Petitioner is respectfully prepared to defend the said.
W. P. Dorell Administrator de bonis non of Thomas Dorell decd.

To Hon. Mr. Browning, Secretary of Interior,
Sir: The within memorandum and others state that I promised, while Sec. of the Interior to re-open the case referred to within, on account of the presentation of additional testimony. Although I do not remember distinctly to have done so, I cannot doubt the truth of the averment. I therefore hope you may find it consistent with your sense of public duty to regard it as a case pending when you took charge of the Department, to the end that justice may be done under the law to the claimants.
With great respect your obedient servt Geo Harlan
Jan 15 th . 1868

In the course of the same visit we attended a meeting of the Board of Directors, and I was requested to prepare a report on the progress of the work during the past season. This report was read and accepted.
In 1848, after a strenuous battle, the rising insurrection in Vienna has been repressed. The general reaction has been brought upon them the most violent reaction in all the principal cities of the Austrian Empire. The revolution has been suppressed, and the reaction has been most violent. The revolution has been suppressed, and the reaction has been most violent.

Question whether right to be recognized as a claimant some times, and when shall that rule be applied, if not after a solemn decision in so other form recognized in its public acts U.S. and other of the states 16th Peter - 1800 - 1st Atty. Genl. Clifford - 2. June 47 -

Scarey & Decis. Mch. 21" 33. pape. 47. M c Lane. Ino. Nelson. Apl. 8. 48. pape. 48. Woodbury. R. Garrison. cont. to be all. pape. 53. R. Clifford. 2 nd pape. 47. " 49 limitation. U.S. v. B. Meth. 16 Pet. 400. 11 J. Ewing. Apl. 17" 50. p. 552. rej'co. Encl. waver not re-open. Alex N. N. Street. Mch. 11" 52. p. 576. 57. linn. J. Ewing. Mch. 11" 52. p. 576. 57. linn.

1777. Oct. The first Pa a State Regt. transferred to Cont l . Schol. h to take the place of 9 th Regt. captured at Germantown. See Winning . 9 th Vol. P. 337.
1779. May Session. Pa a promised Half Pay for life. See Winning . 10 th Vol. P. 25.
1779. Dec r . 16 th Pa a relative to Commutation. See Winning . Vol. 13. P. 131. 1779. Dec r . 16. 13. Winning - P. 131 -

For the cause of the Lib. St. ... before the left by ... ... that is ... already ... ... than in the ... of ... which ... revision is ... until ... after ... ... many ... of the ... the ... The ... ... of ... much ... and terminated ... T. ... Aug. 2 ...

This is to Certify, That it appears from a List in this Office of such Officers and Soldiers of the Virginia State Line, during the Revolutionary War, as settled their Accounts, and received Certificates for the balance of their Full Pay, according to an Act of Assembly, passed the November Session 1781, that a Certificate issued on the 9 th day of July 1783 , in the name of Thomas Ewell — as Capt n of Infantry for £ 298. 0. 5 ⁄ , which Certificate appears to have been delivered to himself and was given for services prior to the 1st January 1782.
{ No Seal of Office. }
Given under my hand at the Auditor's Office, Richmond, this
27 th day of July 18 69 Jas E Heath  first

I also further Certify, That it appears from a List of Officers' Names who have received Certificates for one and two years Advanced Pay, agreeably to Act of Assembly passed November Session 1781, that a Certificate issued on the 8 th day of February 1782 for £ 360. 0. 0 in the name of Thomas Ewell a Capt. of Infantry which Certificate appears to have been delivered to himself
Given under my hand at the Auditor's Office, Richmond, this 27 th day of July 18 49.
Jas. E. Heath and

December, 29 th 1855
Third Auditor's Report to the Secretary of the Treasury, in the case in the Court of Claims of William H. Purcell Versus The United States
All

Hon. James Guthrie Secretary of the Treasury
Treasury Department Third Auditor's Office December 29 th 1855 Sir:
On the 14 th instant I had the honor to receive with directions for a Report the paper returned herewith addressed to you on the 12 th of the same month by the Court of Claims - In the investigation of a cause therein pending of William F. Purcell versus the United States the Court say they consider it necessary to have certain and information, which it is alleged your Department can furnish and they therefore request you to deliver to Samuel H. Huntington Esq. Clerk of said Court, certified copies of the documents and evidence on which the half pay was allowed under the Act of Congress approved July 5. 1832, to Thomas Ewell an Officer of the State Line of Virginia in the Revolutionary War, and any other information in your Department material to the case.
Accordingly I have the honor to transmit herewith certified copies of the following papers, to wit;
1 st Evidence of the service of Capt. Thomas Ewell in the Revolutionary War marked N o . 1. 2 d Col. Gist's order in which Capt. Thomas Ewell is designated for a specific duty, dated "Warrenton Nov. 1 st '79", marked N o . 2.

3 rd Certificate of James E. Heath, Auditor of the State of Virginia that under the act of the Legislature of Virginia a certificate for £360.0.0, was issued on the 8 th of Febrg. 1782, and another for £298.0.5, on the 9 th of July, 1783 in the name of Thomas Ewell a Captain of Infantry in the State Line, both of which were delivered to himself, marked N o . 3. - 4 th Thomas Ewell's last will and testament dated January 19. 1789 & admitted to probate February 1. 1796, marked N o . 4. - 5 th Grant of letters of administration by the Orphans Court of Washington County D.C. upon the estate of Thomas Ewell to William F. Purcell, dated April 10. 1848, marked N o . 5. - 6 th Favorable decision of the Commissioner of Pensions and Secretary of War, upon the claim of the administrator of Thomas Ewell, under the act of Congress of July 5. 1832, for half pay of a Captain from the 22 d of April, 1783 to January 1. 1796, dated April 26 th 1848, marked N o . 6 and 7 th The account as stated and settled by the accounting Officers between the U. States and Captain Thomas Ewell dec d on a/c of said half pay amounting to $3046. 36 dated April 28. 1848, with a receipt thereon for the Amount dated same day by W m F. Purcell, admr of Thomas Ewell, marked N o . 7. -

With the papers there is a power of Attorney from Mary Mills, Thomas Mills, Susan Mills, William Ewell & Sarah Greenwood to John B. Ogg of Norfolk, dated Febr'y 28. 1834, Authorizing him to receive whatever may be due them for the Revolutionary services of Capt. Thomas Ewell, dec'd., and another power for the same purpose from John B. Ogg, to William Hascall dated July 10. 1834, - also several letters from various individuals relative to the claim, none of which are considered material & consequently copies are not transmitted.
I am Very Respectfully Your Obdt Servt. Wm. G. Manning
Auditor

No. of Dwarfs -

Case here in Dept of Claims.
The claim of Th. Desell.
This claim was acted upon twice by Secty, during infirmity, 49 favorably. Once in deciding question of identity and once upon hearing Oct 31.
In Sept. 49. rejected the claim twice.
In April. 1850. refused to refer as upon new discovery.
In May. 1850. referred but did not decide it.
In 1850. Mr. Bell. Secy. as Secty. refused to allow it became Act 1832. did not authorize the pay of such claim.
17 th May. 1857. Secty. Thompson. refused to pay it because Act 32. did not embrace the claim & also because it was awaiting decision in other of claims.
Dec. 20. 1860. Rec. Comt. of the Refrs. Report that the Resolution of the Refrs. of 7 th Feb. 1852. Art. 2. Sec. 35. & 12 th Aug. 46. an legislative interpretation of act 32. that 2 d Sec. act 32. embraced cases of this character.
July. 23. 1861. Com. move Act 32. up to Dept. but with other P. & C.
Subsequently Secty. Bell. decided Fiero's case.
Evans was then ordered to be of rejected.

of Adm. of the Eur. Cl. for station of Half Pay. under Act of 5 July. 1852. the Decided:
W m F. Purcell, Dec: 10" 64 " " " Jany: 6" 65 Secty: Int: " 13" " W m F. Purcell, March. 31 st " Secty: Int: M rs 21" " B r F. Purcell. Jany: 5" 1866.
1869 Jany 18 th I am directed to inform in this case that Sec y M rs is directed to write up the case
Fraser

State Line, which judgment has been paid, and the further fact, that in 1854, the United States allowed some bounty to the heir of said Thomas W. for said services. I have no means of determining upon what proof the judgment was obtained against Virginia. There is evidence of record, to wit: the Certificate of Col. Brent, who Commanded the 2 d Regiment of the Virginia State Line, that Thomas W. Ewell, served as a Captain in the Virginia State Line, until April 1782. Mr. Heath, as Auditor of V a Claims in a letter address to General Wallace in 1848 or 9 that, Thomas W. was the Officer who rendered the service, and that, the Omission of the letter W. in the name as reported in Mr. Barbour's report of the findings of the Board of Officers which sat in Richmond in 1782, was Mr. Barbour's mistake in copying the report. As the original report of the Board of Officers, is not accessible for inspection, I cannot say how this may be, but candor requires me to say that, this statement of Mr. Heath, should not be received, to impeach the record, particularly as he himself reports officially, that the payments made by Virginia in 1777, 1782 & 1783, for services as a Captain in the Virginia State Line, were made to Thomas Ewell, showing that, the Officer, was, during those periods recognized as Thomas Ewell, by his Contemporaries and Comrades and not as Thomas W.

Thomas Ewell Receiver pay from Virginia, as the Officer in at the time the service was rendered question, he received said bounty from the State of Virginia in 1783 half pay from the United States in 1848. Thomas W. Ewell, Receiver Commutation from Va. in 1834, for the same service and said from the United States, in 1856. Both were satisfying in service in the Virginia State Line. Of One of them was.
After patiently investigating this Claim and giving due legal effect to the proof relating to it, I am of the Opinion, that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of Thomas Ewell. I do not think, however, that the Claim is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Assuming that the law of the case is settled, were the Representatives of Thomas and Thomas W. before the Claiming Com- =mission, and all sources of information, which would reflect light upon the subject, had been exhausted, I should favor the Claim of the Representatives of Thomas Ewell.
I have not referred to the history of this case, its long pendency, the frequent reports made in the case, both favorable & unfavorable, nor various items of evidence bearing slightly upon it, for the reason, that the papers are before you, and its history, as well as the class of Claims to which it belongs, are presumed to be well known. I intend to give you my general ideas with reference to it.
B. Patton.

NO  en
ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1871.
WAR OF 1812.
3 1/2
Thomas Ewell Capt
Va Inf Revolution
Discharged _____, 18
book
REJECTED
Nf. Pay — act 32
Received _____, 187

copy
Pension Office April 26. 1848
I hereby certify that I have examined the claim of the Administrator of the late Thomas Ewell, and find that the said Ewell was reported by the Board of Officers which sat at Richmond as a Captain of the first Virginia State Regiment entitled to half pay for life. The case is therefore provided for by the Act of Congress of the 5 th July 1832 entitled "An act to provide for liquidating and paying certain claims of the State of Virginia", and it is my opinion that the claim should be allowed at the rate of two hundred and forty dollars per annum from the 22 nd April 1783 to the first January seventeen hundred and ninety six, he having died in the beginning of that year, and that the amount is payable to William H. Purcell, the Administrator on the estate of the said Ewell.
J. L. Edwards Commissioner of Pensions.
Approved W. L. Marcy Secretary of War
(over)

I hereby certify that the within is a true copy from the original on file in this office.
Miss Annette's office
December 29. 1855
[Faint, mirrored text from the reverse side of the page] The above is a true copy of the original on file in the office of the Commissioner of Pensions and Secretary of War allowing the claim. Annette
No 6.
Copy of decision of Commissioner of Pensions and Secretary of War allowing the claim

Case of Thomas Ewell.
Private Memorandum of S.C.B.
Rev. Off: Nov. 12 th 1865.
Dear Judge Barrett,
Upon examining this claim, you will find that, the only serious question it presents, assuming the law of the case to be settled, is one of identity. Either Thomas Ewell, of Princess Anne County, Virginia, or Thomas W. Ewell, of Prince William County, Virginia, served as a Captain in the First Regiment, of the Virginia State Line, commanded by Col. George Gibson, from January 31 st 1777, to the close of the war. The Original Muster and Pay rolls of this Regiment on file, do not clearly indicate which was the Officer in question. The recent evidence, on file, outside of said rolls, makes strongly in favor of Thomas Ewell. The payment made by Virginia in 1777, for recruiting a Captain's quota, of troops, was made to Thomas Ewell. The Oath of allegiance, taken and subscribed, according to the requirements of a Resolve of Congress of the 3 rd of February, 1778, on the 12 th of May, 1778, and Certified by General Muhlenburg, was, by Thomas Ewell. The payments made by Virginia for services, as a Captain, was to Thomas Ewell, in 1782 and 1783. The Report of the Board of Officers

which Sat in Richmond, in 1782, to determine, what Officers of the Virginia State Line, were in Service to the Close of the War Entitled, from Virginia, to Same Bounty and half pay for life. Shows that Thomas Ewell, was a Captain, in Service and Entitled as aforesaid, to Same Bounty and half pay as an Officer in the First Virginia State Line Regiment. The Executive Council of Virginia, in 1783, allowed Captain Thomas Ewell, Claim to Same Bounty for such Service and the Register of the Land Office at Richmond, issued to Captain Thomas Ewell, a Warrant for 4000 acres of land, for said Service July, 5 th 1783. Subsequently, Virginia, refused to Grant land to the heirs of Thomas W. Ewell, for said Service. These payments made by the State of Virginia; the Report of the Board of Officers, which Sat in Richmond in 1782, and the finding of the Executive Council that, land was due and the Grant under such finding, of 4000 acres, were made Computation with the Service and in some instances by parties identified with the Service. In addition to the foregoing, there is considerable collateral Proof, identifying Thomas Ewell, as the Officer in question. There is, however, much parol proof on file, leading to the conviction that, Thomas W. Ewell, was the Officer, who served as aforesaid and this conviction, is supported and strengthened by the fact, that the heirs of said Thomas W. recovered a judgment against the State of Virginia, in 1834, for commutation, of half pay, due said Thomas W. for services, as a Captain, in the First Regiment of the Virginia

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
DEPARTMENT
OF STATE,
To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting:
I certify, That annexed is a true copy of the oath of allegiance of Capt. Thomas Ewell of the 1 st V a State Regt., the original of which is among the archives of the war of the Revolution preserved in this Department.
In testimony whereof, I, William H. Seward , SECRETARY OF STATE of the UNITED STATES, have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed.
ONE at the City of Washington, this tenth day of October , _____ A. D. 1864, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth .
Wm H Seward

I Thomas Ewell Capt. 1 st V a State Regt. do acknowledge the United States of America to be Free, Independent and Sovereign States, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of Great- Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States against the said King George the Third, his heirs and successors, and his or their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of Captain which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding.
Thos Ewell
Sworn before me at Camp 12 th May 1778
P Muhlenberg B r